MASTER 
NEGA  TIVE 
NO.  91-80039 


MICROFILMED  1991 

COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
'ToundatioiiN  of  Western  Civilization  PTQ^--'-":-^'[on  Project" 


Funded  b\'  the 

NATIONAL  LNDOWMENT  FOR  THE  Hm-AxrriES 


Reprodiictl-Hr^  may  not  be  made  withou-  .x  n:;; s- 1  ^^p  from 

Columbia  Umversitv  Libran' 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  ^^  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copynghted  material... 

Columbia  University  Librar>'  reserves  the  vlmi  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  m  its^udgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


Al  JHOli 


FORMAN,  LtWIS 


riTLE: 


THE  GENITIVE... 

PLACE : 

BALTIMORE 

DATE: 

1894 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 


PRESi  ivATION 


.  f 


Master  Negative  # 


PlitC  MICROFORX 


%  H 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


BKS/PROD   Boaks        FUL/BIB    NYCG91-B21319 
Record  1  of  0  --  Record  added  today 


Acquisitions 


MYCG-PT 


IDsNYCG91-B2:l319 

CCs9668   BLT:am 

CP  rnyu 

PCsr 

MMD: 

GAG 

:I.GO  IG 

245  14 


BT:p 


\u   O  »^  " 


:)  • 


FRN: 
MOD: 
BIO:? 
CPI'^? 


|v|Q 


t) 


RR 


BNR 
FIC 
FSI 
COL 


7 


ELs 
ATCs 
CON 
IL( 
EML 


AD:G3-22-91 
UDsG3-22-91 


-  '?  7  9 

M   .    ■    • 


•^.797'? 


ME  I 
GEN 


II  s 
BSE  2 


ew 


26G  1 
3GG 
LDG 
QD 


RTYP:a 
DCF5? 
Lseng  INT:?         GPC 

PD: 1991/1894  REF 

OR:  POL:  DM 

NNC=:-  I  cNHC 

Thrd^ffer-ence    between    the    genitive    and    datxve =  I  hCmn.  crof  arm.] -^M  cby 

i.  s    L..  e  -a  m  i  ri  g    F  o  i"  ni  a  n  ,     A  ,  N  . 
Bal  t  i  mo r  e  ,  ••••  I  c  1 894  . 
68    p. 
0  R I  G 
G3-22-91 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


TECHNirAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


i        It         :'«'.« 

I   :  \  ;  _■  \  \     ,  r 

I     „.'^      /      \         I.  I  .  - 

rf '■  \th  ■ 

4        Ai-.rf<^^itA.    -*- 


^.    ^:   f 


MENT:    I A  QiA"    115     IIB 

i^  :_4_i  J_3_r_^/. 


REDUCTION     RATIO:__lJ 


INITIALS_'7?^A^ 


Ri  Sh  \RCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC  WOOPBRIDGE.  CT 


<fe. 


>, 


c 


Association  for  Information  and  Image  Management 

1100  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

12         3        4 

IllllllllilUlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 


T 


Inches 


I  I  I 


1 


Hi 


6         7        8         9 

iiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiii 


TTT 


T 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


10       11        12       13       14       15    mm 

iiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiii 


1^      2.8 

150 

2.5 

la  ¥■' 

2.2 

163 

lllll  3.6 

1^      11^ 

■  so 
IS. 

2.0 

*-      u 

i£:uu 

1.8 

1.4 

1.6 

TTT 


MflNUFfiCTURED   TO   flllM   STfiNDfiRDS 
BY   APPLIED   IMnCE,     INC. 


f. 


^K   ^? 


■A^ 


■  ^      <-^.^v 


^! 


/■ 


*^i,. 


*  *  --^ 


1  ^; 


i 


'n   - 


>-' 


oo 


*%• 


m 


i^>^. 


f- 


-mi  % 


1 


v« 


.1 


v,- 


/i 


i 


\ 


%, 


i^r. 


£:«'feS^M 


^,SI 


mi^ 


f%  r^ 


WF] 


©olumbla  (HolU^^ 


+  !  T  f-^ 


I   II  I' 

list 


-I 


GIVEN    BY 


TuvDVvsn 


^Y 


>       >  »      J  13 

)  »     ^       ^  A  ~1  - 


THE   DIFFERENCE 


BETWEEN 


k         THE  GENITIVE  AND  DATIVE 


USED   WITH    £7rc    TO 


DENOTE   SUPERPOSITION 


BY 


V— J 


LEWIS  LEAMING  FORMAN,  A.  M 


*  •  « 


/ 


A  DISSERTATION  ACCEPTED  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR 

OF    PHILOSOPHY    IN    THE   JOHNS    HOPKINS 

UNIVERSITY,  FEBRUARY,   1 894 


BALTIMORE 
1894 


•  •  I 
»  I 


•  •• 

•  • 

•  •• 

•  • 

•  •• 


:•  • 


•    •      • 

•  •  •  •  • 


f 


I ,  •  •  • 


t  • 


•  • 


•  ••  ••••• 


•  •  •  •    • 

•  •  •  •  •• 
•    ••  •  • 

V    •      •   •  •  •  • 


i  •  • 


•••••••• 


PRESS  OF 

THE   FRIEDENWAIiD  COMPANY 

BALTIMORE 


N 

■  ^^ 


CO 


>•   •  ••    •  • 


••••••••• 

•  ••  r*  ••'>  •  •  • 
•  •••••    • 


.*.  •••  : 


•  •     "  •  , 

•  •    • 

•  •••••  ••• 


•  n 
•      ••• 


•••••         •       •••• 


•  • 


•  •<•••     <>•• 


•  •   •      «    • 


•    * 


"  Vix  quidquani  tam  lubricum  est  in  syntax!  linguarum,  quam 
hi  loci,  qui  sunt  de  praepositionibus  et  de  coniunctionibus." 
These  words  of  G.  Hermann/  though  written  many  years  ago 
(1831),  must  be  recognized,  however  regretfully,  as  still  true  by 
any  one  who  has  attempted  to  answer  even  some  less  important 
question  in  prepositional  usage.  Classification  he  finds  difficult, 
at  times  impossible,  and  the  opinions  of  authorities  widely  diver- 
gent. 

On  the  general  theory  of  prepositions,  it  is  true,  Delbriick 
announced  in  1879  the  following  consensus  of  judgment :  **  Ueber 
die  urspriingliche  Anwendung  dieser  Prapositionen  (avd,  inly  napa, 
TTfpiy  Trpdy,  npo,  fV,  fK,  $Cv)  ist  man  jetzt  zu  einer  iibereinstimmenden 
Meinung  gelangt.  Man  nimmt  allgemein  an,  dass  die  Praposi- 
tionen urspriinglich  wie  alle  Worter  Freiworier  (sog.  Adverbia) 
waren,  und  dann  Begleiiworter  wurden,  und  zwar  von  Anfang  an 
in  grosster  Ausdehnung  verbale  Begleitworter,  dagegen  Anfangs 
seltener  und  erst  im  Laufe  der  Zeit  haufiger  werdend  nominale 
Begleitworter.  In  der  altesten  Zeit  war  es  die  wesentliche  Auf- 
gabe  der  Prapositionen,  die  Richtung  der  im  Verbum  ausge- 
driickten  Handlung  naher  zu  bestimmen,  die  Beziehung  der 
Handlung  aber  auf  einen  Gegenstand  driickte  der  Casus  allein 
aus,  ohne  Beihiilfe  der  Prapositionen.'"  So  essentially  say 
Kiihner,'  Curtius,*  Whitney^  and  others  before  this  date,  and  so 
Paul,*  Brugmann,'  Vogrinz'  and  others  since.  But  it  is  only  upon 
this  general  theory  that  a  consensus  can  be  obtained — so  general 
indeed  that  it  must  ignore  the  question  of  the  ultimate  origin  of 

'  Opuscula,  vol.  V,  p.  50,  quoted  by  Sobolewski,  De  Praepositionum  Usu 
Aristophaneo. 

'^  Syniaktische  Forschungen^  IV  126. 

3  Grammatik  der  griech.  Sprache  (1870),  II,  §428,  3  and  4. 

^  Erlduterungen  (1875),  p.  176. 

^Language  and  the  Study  of  Lang.  (1877),  p.  276. 

^  Principien  der  Sprachgeschichte  (1886),  p.  316. 

'  Griechische  Gramtnatik  (Miiller's  Handbuch,  II,  1890),  §195. 

^  Grammatik  des  homerischen  Dialektes  (1889),  p.  206. 


•  •  • 


•    • 


preposItidnV*!?/.  K  WJi'd-ther  or  not  they  contain  the  stems  of 
Begriff^ivbrUry  ^htxeksy'l^  one  enters  into  particulars  even  so 
slightly  4s*to  afek  for.*il  .dt^fimtion  of  the  difference  between  the 
true'a'nd  the  '^  imprbpeV"' preps.,  or  what  preps.,  if  any,  go  with 
the  true  gen.  case,  he  will  obtain  a  great  diversity  of  answers. 
Curtius,  for  instance,  finds  that  the  gen.  depends  upon  avrl,  npo, 
didy  vTTfp  "und  vielen  andern— gerade  in  der  Weise  wie  von  unserm 
Angesichts,  laut,  kraft.'"  Delbriick  takes  issue  with  him,  though 
admitting  the  Curtius-constructionas  a  probability  for  apri  and  a  pos- 
sibility for  8id,  because  they  may  belong  to  the  class  of  "  unechten, 
d.  h.  aus  Nominalstammen  gebildeten  Prapositionen.'"  Vogrinz, 
Gram,  des  homerischeii  Dialekies,  takes  the  gen.  to  be  adnominal 
with  am  (p.  2Il),5ia  (p.  214),  fcani  sometimes  (p.  215),  v7r€>(p.  2 16), 
napd  "schwer  zu  entscheiden"  (p.  222),  irpos  ''allem  Anschein 
nach  "  (p.  223).     Delbriick  now  says  :  "  Der  echte  Genitiv  findet 

sich  bei  avri,  vnep,  fiia,  eVi,  irori,  dvd,  dpcpij  ncpl,  /ifra.      Bei  avTi,  vnep  und 

8id  diirfte  es  der  alte  adnominale  Genitiv  sein,  welcher  uns  bei  den 
unechten  Prap.  begegnet."*  It  will  be  observed  that  as  these 
lists  are  not  co-extensive,  the  slipperiness  of  which  Hermann 
complains  is  still  present. 

For  the  purposes  of  the  present  essay,  however,  these  larger 
questions  need  not  be  taken  up  and  the  general  theory  as  above 
presented  may  be  subscribed  to.  We  proceed  therefore  to  the 
proper  subject  of  the  essay — the  difference  between  the  gen.  and 
dat.  used  with  firi  to  express  superposition,  or,  to  take  a  concrete 

case, 

What  is  the  Attic  Greek  prose  for  '  with  his  hat  on  his  head '  ? 
Is  it  fVt  T?is  K€(^aX^9,  or  fVi  TJ  KfcjiaXj}  ?  Or  if  either,  is  there  any 
shade  of  difference  in  the  meaning? 

For  the  translation  of  so  simple  a  phrase,  one  might  expect 

'See  Grassmann,  Ursprung  der  Prdpositionen,  Kuhn's  Zeitschrift,  XXIII 
(1877),  p.  559.  He  maintains  (p.  563):  "  Keine  achte  Praposition  ist  aus 
einem  Begriffswort  entsprungen,"  as  also  :  "  Keine  achte  Prap.  ist  als  Casus 
zu  fassen.'*  See  on  the  contrary  for  rrapa,  Osthoff,  Morph.  UnUrs.  IV  283, 
Anm.,  "  der  alte  Instrumental,"  and  for  Trt/oi  and  m,  Brugmann,  Gr.  Gram., 
^194  (locat.).  So  too  did  (6iai),  npo,  and  others  have  been  reckoned  among 
the  preps,  "in  quibus  terminatio  alicuius  nominis  latet,  ex  quo  genetivus 
pendeat,"  J.  A.  Heilmann,  Z>e  Genetivi  Graeci  maxima  Homerici  usu  (1873), 
p.  25,  note  2, 

"^  Erlduterungejiy  ^.  1*^"] . 

^  Syttt.  Forsch.  IV  134. 

*  Vergleichende  Syntax  der  indogermanischen  Sprachen  (1893),  p.  762. 


y 


^ 


i 


s 

clear  rules  and  distinctions  laid  down  even  in  the  elementary 
books.  The  question  is  not  one  of  origins.  No  matter  what  its 
derivation,  affinities  or  ultimate  meaning,  eV/  is  certainly  the 
proper  preposition,  while  the  case  of  the  substantive  should  be 
setded  by  an  examination  of  the  remains  of  Greek  literature  ;  and, 
if  both  cases  prove  to  be  allowed,  the  difference  between  them,  if 
worth  anything,  should  appear  at  the  same  time.  Only  in  this  last 
matter  need  one  feel  drawn  beyond  the  Greek  in  search  of  the 
Indo-Germanic  basis  of  distinction. 

Yet  simple  as  the  question  seems,  scholars  are  much  at  vari- 
ance about  it.     Stated  in  general  terms  the  question  is: 

i)  Does  Attic  Greek  prose  employ  €7rt  with  both  genitive 
and  dative  to  express  concrete  superposition  of  one  body  upon 

another  ? 

2)  If  so,  what  is  the  difference,  if  any,  between  the  two  forms 

of  expression  ? 

The  answers  of  the  following  authorities  I  quote  at  some  length, 
that  their  text  may  be  at  hand  for  reference. 

i)  Kiihner,  Grammatik  der  griech.  Sprache  (1870),  II,  §438: 
"fVt  mit  dem  Dativ,  i)  raumlich  zur  Angabe  des  Verweilens 
nicht  nur,  wie  beim  Gen.,  auf,  sondern,  und  zwar  haufiger,  in 
erweiterter  Bedeutung  an  od.  bei  einem  Orte  od.  Gegenstande." 
He  then  quotes  among  other  instances  of  az^/Xen.  An.  VII  4,  4 

ol  QpaKii  rat  d\(07r€Kidas  (ul  rais  KCC^aXmy  0opo{}(ri  Ka\  rols  oxri  kqI  ((^pds 
(Oberkleider)  pexpt  twi/  Troba>v  enl  tZ)v  lirntav  €xov(nvy  remarkmg  '' firi 
c.  dat.  rein  raumlich,  aber  eVt  t5>v  tn-Tro)*/,  insofern  die  Pferde  als 
thatig  gedacht  werden  ;  so  Plat.  Conv.  2i2<?  eVt  r^  Kcc^nX.^  tx(^v  rds 

raivias,  aber  kurz  VOrher  raipias  €X<^v  fVi  tPjs  KCC^aX^y. 

2)  Kruger,  Griechische  Grammatik  (1875),  ^68,  41,  i:  "Bei 
eVi  mit  dem  Gen.  wird  eine  mehr  zufallige,  freiere  Verbindung 
gedacht ;  bei  i-ni  mit  dem  Dat.  schwebt  mehr  der  Begriff  der 
Zugehorigkeit  vor." 

3)  Rutherford,  Babrius  (1883),  p.  7  :  "  The  correct  Attic  usage 
is  very  simple,  the  best  writers  of  prose  and  comedy  limiting  eW 
c.  gen.  to  position  or  motion  upon  an  object  or  surface,  and  /tt/  c. 
dat.  to  position  or  motion  at  or  near.  Thus  a  floating  body  is 
fVi  TTora/ioG,  a  city  im  norap^.  A  wounded  man  may  be  carried 
home  iu\  evpS>v,  a  beggar  sits  eVl  Oupai^.  In  tragedy  this  distinc- 
tion is  not  observed,  and  em  c.  dat.  is  also  used  to  convey  the 
sense  which  prose  writers  confine  to  the  genitive.  In  Thucydides 
the  prose  usage  has  not  yet  become  absolute,  and  although  several 


deviations  from  the  rule,  such  as  aKdnov  enl  afid^rj  KaraKOfMiCetu  (4,  67), 
admit  of  easy  correction,  yet  the  undoubted  dat.  in  2,  80  tovs 

onXiras   em   vavai  7r€fM7rov<Ti,   4,    ID  cVt   rats   paval  pqarol   flcriv  afxvp^adai, 

proves  that  such  emendation  is  as  uncalled  for  in  the  immature 
Attic  of  Thucydides  as  it  would  be  in  Herod,  or  Xen.  The  Ionic 
and  poetic  laxity  also  crops  up  in  the  Symposium,  where  Plato 
allows  himself  a  poet's  license,  and  in  the  same  paragraph  (212^) 
are  found  the  poetical  eVi  rij  K€cf)a\T}  tx^^  "^^^  raiviasf  and  the  prosaic 
raipias  exovra  eVi  rrfs  *c6(^aX^?.  In  no  writer,  however,  is  the  genuine 
prose  signification  of  fVt'  c.  dat.  ever  accredited  to  (nl  c.  gen.,^ 
although  the  meaning  'in  the  direction  of  sometimes  brings  fVi 
close  to  that  of*  near.'" 

4)  Sobolewski,  De  Praepositionum  Usu  Aristophaneo  (Mos- 
cow, 1890),  p.  161:  "  Sed  omnino  genetivum  multo  usitatiorem 
dativo  in  quotidiano  Atticorum  sermone  fuisse  vel  inde  clarissime 
apparet,  quod  Aristoph.  hoc  usu  fVi  iungit  dativo  in  senariis  ii-ies, 
in  alio  genere  versuum  13-ies  (quo  annumeravi  etiam  Vesp.  1293, 
ubi  Aristoph.  tragicos  imitatur),  genetivo  autem  in  senariis  48-ies, 
in  aliis  numeris  14-ies."  In  a  footnote  he  adds :  "  Errat  igitur 
Rutherfordius,  qui  hunc  dativi  usum  a  comicis  omnino  abiudicat 
(Babrius,  p.  7)."  On  the  difference  between  gen.  and  dat.,  p. 
160 :  '*  Quaerenti  mihi,  quid  inter  utramque  constructionem  inter- 
esset,  sensus  quidem  discrimen  esse  nullum  visum  est,"  citing  Eq. 
783  by  the  side  of  754,  and  Vesp.   1040  as  compared  with  Lys. 

575.  732,  Eccl.  909. 

5).  Gildersleeve,  Americaii  Journal  of  Philology,  XI,  p.  372, 
reviewing  Sobolewski's  book  :  "  Under  (Vi  c.  gen.  Sobolewski 
rejects  Kriiger's  distinction  between  tVt  c.  gen.  and  eVi  c.  dat.  in 
a  local  sense,  a  distinction  which,  it  is  true,  might  well  be  reversed 
theoretically  as  well  as  practically,  for  we  should  expect  the 
natural  position  to  be  expressed  by  fVt  c.  gen.,  the  unnatural  by 
the  dat.  Fixity  of  position  is  in  fact  often  denoted  by  eVi  c.  gen. 
(see  my  Justin  Martyr,  Apol.  I  26,  15),  and  it  is  not  impossible 
that  there  may  be  some  such  feeling  as  we  have  in  regard  to  vno 
c.  gen.  and  v/ro  c.  dat.  In  refutation  of  Kriiger,  Sobolewski  points 
triumphantly  to  Eq.  783  compared  with  754,  but  he  might  have 
claimed  here,  not  mere  indifference,  but,  if  one  must  refine, 
reversal.     It  would  be  easy  to  make  Demos  wriggle  in  the  one 

*Sce,  however,  to  take  the  word  Mr.   Rutherford  himself  has  chosen, 
Lycurg.  /card  Acuxpdrovf  §40  bphv  d'  rjv  ctt*  \ihv  rov  Qvpi^iv  ywaiKa^  kXevdepaq 


mn 


passage  and  sit  quiet  in  his  *  fixed  normal  position '  in  the  other. 
At  any  rate,  the  gen.  is  much  more  common  in  Attic  daily  speech 
than  the  dat.,  as  Sobolewski  shows,  though,  as  he  also  notes, 
Rutherford  is  wrong  in  denying  cVi  c.  dat.  in  this  sense  to  Attic 

(Babrius,  p.  7)." 

6).  Transferring  the  question  to  Homeric  Greek  (Monro,  No- 
meric  Gram.,  §200)  :  "  The  gen.  with  fVi  is  used  in  nearly  the  same 
sense  as  the  dat.,  but  usually  with  less  definitely  local  force;  in 
particular— i)  with  words  expressing  the  great  divisions  of  space, 
espec.  when  a  contrast  is  involved  (land  and  sea,  etc.) ;  as  fVt 

X'^9<Tov,  eV  ^TTfi'pou,  67r'  dypov  \   Od.  12,   27   ^  dXof  ?   cVi  y^f  aXyijo-frc— 

2)  where  the  local  relation  is  a  familiar  one ;  as  cVt  vTjoy,  eV*  d'ni]vr\^y 

e(p'    tnTrav,    cVt    dpovov,    eV*    ovBov,    eVt    nvpyov,    fV*    dyKavos,    fVi    fi^Xirjs 

(epfiaBeis).  Thus  eVt  vrjvai  means  on  or  deside  ships,  em  vr]5>v  on 
board  ships."  (But  for  the  Greeks  before  Troy  was  (Vt  vr)!i>v  a 
more  familiar  location  than  em  prjval  ?) 

Further  quotation  is  needless  to  prove  variety  of  opinion.^  Mr. 
Rutherford  is  perhaps  alone  in  denying  to  Attic  Greek  prose  the 
use  of  the  dat.  in  the  sense  of  superposition.  This  point  is  natu- 
rally the  first  to  be  taken  up,  and  could  perhaps  be  determined  by 
an  appeal  simply  to  Att.  Greek  prose.  But  it  will  be  better  to 
present  at  the  same  time  and  in  historic  order  the  whole  material 
of  the  question. 

The  following  lists 

i)  include  only  concrete  substantial  things,  admitting  abstrac- 
tions, metaphors  or  other  unrealities  only  when  they  vividly  sug- 
gest their  originals,  e.  g.  Soph.  Ant.   189-90  (speaking  of  the 

jToXt?)    ravrrjs  em  irXeopres  ]   Ar.  Av.  39-4O  ot   fxep  yap  ovp  Temyii  .... 
f.  Twi'   Kpadiop  adova,  *A6r]paioi  5'   del    f .   tS)P  diKap  adovai ;   Xen.  An.  11 

5,  23  of  the  wearing  of  the  tiara  e.  rrj  KecpaXij  and  also  e.  -nj  Kapbla. 

2)  exclude  on  the  contrary  concrete  objects  where  evidently 
the  meaning  is  not  purely  local,  e.  g.  z  423-24  ndpras  ydp  Kare- 

necf)Pi  ....    ^ova\   en     elXinoSeaai    (cf.   VV.    209,    22l)  ;    Xen.   Cyr.   V 

*  I  may,  however,  quote  Kuemmell,  /?<?  Praepositionis  eiri  Usu  Thucydidco 
(1875),  p.  30:  "Structuris  Genetivi  et  Dativi  collatis  demonstrabo  saepe 
fere  nihil  interesse  Genetivus  an  Dativus  sit  usurpatus."  He  then  com- 
pares I  13,  5  with  I  56,  2,  £.  Tov  iadiLLov  and  e.  Tcp  ladfi^  ;  II  93,  4  with  VIII 
106,  4  CLKpurripiov  and  -w  ;  IV  118,  4  with  105,  2  i.  rfj^  avTuv  piveiv  and 
k.  Tolg  iavTov  .  .  .  fiheiv  ;  IV  100,  4  with  VIII  69  i,  en'  avTov  (sc.  Teixovg) 
and  k.  Teixei;  III  102,  4  (and  IV  loi,  3)  with  II  80,  2  (and  IV  10,  3)  vtwv 
and  vavai. 


1^ 


i 


8 

3,  34  f.  rots  vTToCvyiois  Koi  oxTjfiaa-i  KaraXiirtlv  riva  ;    IsOC.  1 7,  42  {oXudda) 

€<^'  5  TToXXa  xpnf^^^'  n^  *V<"  ^eSoxo)?,  of  a  loan,  not  literally  as  Baiter 
translates  it  "  navem  onerariam,  cui  ego  multas  merces  iniposu- 

eram."^     See  p.  33 

3)  include,  but  keep  separate,  all  instances  where  fVt  with  either 
case  is  equivalent  to  «/  or  near} 

4)  include  those  instances  of  fW  c.  dat.  after  vv.  of  motion 
wherein  a  clear  image  is  presented  of  superposition  consequent 
upon  the  action  of  the  verb.'  Hence  n  579  L  P€Kp^  Kdnufaev  and 
the  like  are  included,  but  not  such  instances  as  eV'  aXXj}Xot(rt»/  16pt€s 
*  going  at  each  other.'  The  verb  of  motion  is  always  given  in  the 
lists  (sometimes  also  other  words  which  may  aid  the  memory  in 
recalling  the  passage). 

5)  exclude  all  temporal,  causal,  or  other  developed  uses  of  em 
c.  gen.  and  dat.  The  bearing,  however,  of  such  uses  on  the  ques- 
tion will  be  shown  later. 

6)  include  reference  to  a  few  works  undoubtedly  of  the  post- 
classic  age,  e.  g.  the  Batrachomyomachia,  the  spurious  Platonic 
dialogues  and  others.  There  is  still  a  remnant  of  respect  for  these 
works,  though  hardly  justifiable.* 

7)  include,  for  convenience,  under  the  department  of  History 
the  dozen  instances  more  or  less  to  be  found  in  Xenophon's  philo- 
sophical works,  since  for  him  the  department  would  hardly  affect 
the  style  in  this  particular. 

8)  Instances  of  the  case-form  -(^iCv)*  which  is  neither  gen.  nor 
dat.,  have  been  omitted  altogether.  They  can  offer  little  aid  in 
establishing  a  difference  of  the  cases,  since  it  is  only  by  that  dif- 
ference that  their  own  usage  is  established. 

9)  Instances  in  the  Att.  Greek  inscriptions  down  to  300  B.  C, 
being  few  in  number  (12  of  the  dat.  and  9  of  the  gen.)  and  not 

^  Attention  will  be  occasionally  drawn  to  the  more  striking  or  doubtful 
passages  of  this  kind  in  the  notes  accompanying  the  lists,  but  a  full  account 
of  the  omissions  is  given  in  Appendix  A. 

2  Yet  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Greeks  said  upon  (crri),  and  that 
this  separation  of  the  passages  according  to  our  translation  or  to  our  view 
of  the  facts  of  the  case  is  only  one  of  convenience  in  this  special  inquiry. 
The  inquiry  is,  not  the  various  meanings  of  £77/  in  English,  but  the  transla- 
tion of  upon  into  Greek. 

'  See  Kuhner's  Gram.,  §447,  for  this  so-called  constructio praegnaus. 

*  See,  for  the  probable  date  of  the  Batrach.,  Van  Herwerden  in  Mnetnos. 
New  Scries,  X  (1882),  p.  171. 


i 


i 


i 


\ 

^9 


always  of  clear  signification,  are  not  included,  but  may  be  found 
in  Append.  B. 

10)  The  lists  are  arranged  according  to  the  period  and  depart- 
ment of  the  authors,  the  words  within  the  lists  alphabetically. 
Substantives  when  given  in  the  nominative  do  not  stand  in  the 
passage  cited,  but  some  word  of  reference  instead,  which  is  always 
indicated.  References  in  brackets,  either  by  figures  or  abbrevia- 
tions, indicate  those  other  lists  or  authors  in  which  the  same  word 
will  be  found  but  in  the  other  case.  For  example,  the  bracket 
[3.  4.  Hd.  X.]  after  the  word  opco-i  in  list  7  indicates  that  in  lists 
3,  4,  and  in  Herodotus  and  Xenophon  the  word  will  be  found  in 
the  gen.  case  c.  eVt  denoting  superposition. 

I. — Epic. 

a)     Iliad  and  Odyssey. 

eVt  c,  Dat.  =  Superposition. 


atyetpos  A  4^4  oKporaTij. 

aifiaTi  X  82. 

aKTfj  B  395.     o)  82.     [Hm.  3.  6] 

anrjPT}  (  75  KartdqKiv.    [Hm.  Hs.  3] 

da-nis  A  36  rr}.     [2.  3.  Ar.  Hd.  X.] 

^^Xw  Sf'  202  inicrrt). 

^\€(f)dpoi(n  K  26  ((piCave.  S  165 
X^^V'  «  364  ^dXe.  ^  398  eTTiTT- 
T€v»  €  27 1  €nnrT€v,  p.  33^  ex^vav. 
V  79  €7rnrT€v.  it  45 1  ^ciXc.  t  59O 
XvBeir).  604  ^aXe.  v  54  ^X^^^^' 
(^358  /3aXf.     >|r  309  nlTTTev.     [3] 

^w/xof    0    240   rraa-i  .  .  .  prjpi     eKrjn. 

y  273 /Sw/Liotf.    [1.2.  3.  Ar.  X.6] 

yaiT)  r  II4*caT€^ei/T0.  A  161.  N  654 
K€iTo.  11  310  (v.  /.)  KciTTTreo-e. 
413  Ktimrfcre.  P  5^  (^eravvvae. 
S^Kfipevov.  *  1 18  K€tro.  ^876 
Trayrf  (Nauck  COnj.  tvi).  k  165 
KaTa<\ivas»  <t  <^2  ravv(T(r€i€v. 
T  200  larraaBai  (v.  I.  ynirji,  which 

I  prefer).      Note  that  in  all 
these  passages  yalrj  stands  at 


end  of  verse,  where  corruption 
is  easy.  [i.  2.  3.  4.  Th.  X. 
6.  PL] 

yovvaa-t  Z  92  6eivai.  273  de's.  303 
OqK€v.  I  ^SS  yovveaai  KaBlaaas, 
X  500.    T  401  6^K€v.    (j>  55  Bfiaa, 

[X.  6] 

8L(f)p(0  Z  354  eC^o.     r  lOI  avT<o  Ka>as 

IjSaXXei/.    [Hm.  Hy.  Hs.  4.  X.] 
Sovpa  ship-timbers  p  444  k^op^vo^ 

6     tTTt   TOl<ri. 

eX/cct  O  393  €7raaa(. 
earopi  Q  2J2  /3aXXoi/. 

f'cx^pn  C 5^  V(JTo.   305  5o-Tai.  »;  153 

Kar  ap  ((ero.      l6o  r^aOai.     ^  42O 
eoTrjcrap.      v  1 23.      [X.  OJ 
^ti/i  A    248.      ^  59   kcIto.      ^  408. 
y  S'      V  290.      t  551-      ^  75. 

dpopoiai  IT  408  KaBlCop.    [Hm.  Hy. 

x.]_ 

Opcoa-p^  K  160  elarm.      A  56.      Y  3. 
UpoiaL     A     775     cmipboiP.        p    2>^2 
Xft^^ai. 


10 


II 


Innoiiv  *  362  fidariyas  aeipav.    o  Io2 

fjidariv  ^d\€P.    See  notes  at  end 
of  this  list. 

laros    mast   y.   ^22    avr^,   ^(^\r)To. 

[Hd.] 
itap7razt;m/'(?)E458.  883.  9328. 

P  601.     2  594.     *  489-     Q  671. 

(T   258.        X    277-        ^    398. 

KktafJiolcn  G  436  kciOICov  =  A  623  = 

p  90.     [Hy.] 

koXtto}  Z  400. 

'cpari  r  336  eBrjKfv.  E  743  ^<ro. 
K  335  €(T(TaTO.  A  41  ^eVo.  O  480 
?%€v.       n  137    €erjK€P.       X    123 

Kpora(\)ois   0-378    dpapvia  =  x    ^^2. 

[4] 

a^irri  A  219  (rx«^e  X«*P"* 

Xi^oi?   2  504  ilaro,      y  406  kqt    ap 

((iTO.        408     OCff,     iCiiTKiV,         B    6 

(ca^r^oi/.      L^^'  ^'J 
\ip4ai  T€  Kol  aKTals  M  284  Kf'xvTai. 
\vyos  I  428  rrjs  em  KticXo)^  €v5e. 
fiaCco  X  448.    r  483.     [Hd.  fiacTTOvl 
yLtkd6p(o  T  544  fc""    "P    fC«''0' 
/iO^Xoff  I  3^2  a/cpo). 

/iCXi^ff  7;  104.     [Hs.] 

V€/fpa)      n       579       KaTTTTCtTC*'.  P     3^^ 


1T€0€. 


v€Kvs  yjr  47  aXXiyXoKTi,  Acciaro. 

v€vp^  A  1 18  KaTfKoapfi  okttov.   G  324 

vrjval  B  35 1  €^aivop,  O  388.  ^414 
vi^l  AcaT^eo-av.  o)  419  ndiPTes. 
In     G    222,    A    5,    600,    K    408 

whether  superpos.  or  prox- 
imity is  meant  is  uncertain, 
[i.  2.  3.  Ar.  Hd.  Th.  X.] 

o(a)  B  312  o((o  eV'  dKpoTdT(o.     [Eur.J 
J.t,   E  141  dk\T]\rj(Tiy  Kexvvrai. 
Bnnaai  K  91  iCdvfi.    €  492  xcve.     [3] 


optaai  E  523  €(TTrj(T€P.  See  also 
the  list  of  proper  names  be- 
low.    [Soph.  Ar.  Hd.  X.] 

Ovdd   E  734  KaT€XfV€P.         G  385  KUTf- 

X€v(p.      T  92. 
ov8co      (yrjpaos)     X     60.        Q    487. 

o  348. 
wcrt  ^i  200  aXei\/ra. 
6<f)pvai    Y  151    Ka^rCo»'   (o^   21    ^^^O- 

Of  the  face,  o  102.     *  396. 
h^v  *  17-    [X.] 

TTc'C?/  Q  272  KQTfdrjKap  (Cvy6p\ 
iTiTprj  n  407  KaBr^ptPOS.      429-       [2» 

Eur.  Ar.] 
tdJx"  (of  ^  bow)  0  419. 

Trpo^oXo)  /x  251. 

nv\T}(Ti  r  149  ciaro.      2  275  (rapides 

fTTt  T^f  apapviai. 
TTvpyo)   r  153   rjPT.      384.      Z   431. 

X  97  epflaas.     [Hm.  Hs.  Eur.] 
pv/idff    E    729    uKpa    5J)a€.      Q    271 

pvp(Of  KaTiBrjKap. 
aaKos  H  246  avrw. 
(TKonlKoiai  p  239  frriTrrci/. 
(TTijBeaai   A  420.      I  49O.      M   15I. 

2  317.      *    254.      *■  18   Bepcpos. 
727  icaTrrrfo-e. 
OX'C???  A  462.      y  459. 
raXapo?  d  1 34  avrG?. 

TeiX^r  X   463   €(TTTJ.      [X.      Cf.  T€tXi'»»' 

Eupolis] 

Tpoms   rjBf   Koi  laros  p  425  tC^P^^os 

d'  €771  To79.     [Hm.  Eur.] 
rup^o)  B  793  r^€.     A  371.     P  434- 

X  77  nrj^ai* 
<f)Tjy^  H  60  (((aBrjp. 

X€iTJ  hole,  deji  x  93  {—aO.). 

X<4X€i    (SC.  rd<ppov)    M  51    eV    a/cpto 

X"  e(f)€(TTa6T(s.      [Hd.    1  h.J 
x«p<rt    5    213    x^^"*'^^"'       '^    230. 

[2.  Hd.] 


xBopi  A  88.     r  89  dnoBeaBai.      1 95. 
A    443.       Z    213    KaT€nT)^€p    (ipi 

Bekker,  Christ,  Leaf,  Faesi 
and   others).      473   KUTeBrjK^p. 

G  73  iCeaBrjp.  M  I58  Karex^vep, 
P  550.  2  461.  Y  483  KCtTai. 
*  426   Kflro.      ^731    Kanneaop. 

a    196.        C   153-  V   ^7-    307- 

B    222.      I  89.      X   461.      /i  191. 

'^439-      <o  S3S  Trlnre.      [l.  3] 

^ITWO-l  «I>   3^* 

Xpoi  P  210  TJppoaf. 

yjrapaBois  A  486  vrja  epvaaap.    ^853 

€(TTrj(rap,      y   ^S  Xbpva^p.      1/119 

yj/apdBay    eBecrap.        284    cKfiprjp. 

X  387  Ke^vvTat. 
pots  o  61  ^aXcTo.      [Hm.  3.  Hd. 

6.  PL] 


Proper  Names  and  References 
to  Persons, 

'l(fiibdp,apTi  A  261. 
KaWiKoXapr)  Y  53* 
"Ocrarj  X  315  Bep^iP. 
OvKvpL-nco  X  315  B€p€P, 
linrpoKKto  P  706. 

aXXjJXoio-i  X  3^9  pvrjOTTJpts  .  .  .  «- 
Xvi^ro.      [Pl«] 

aurw  (of  various  persons)  S  419. 
n  661.  Q  666.  A  470.  P  236, 
where  note  contrast  with  vtto. 
^  381  (?).  (o  525.  Also  in 
the   phrase  dpd^ijae   6e   tcvx«' 

fV'   avT<^   A  504.      E  (42).      58. 
294.    540.        G     260.       N    187. 
P50.    311.      o)  525. 
T«    E   101  =  283  =  347.     "ir   188. 
O  445  rotfft. 


Despite  varying  opinion  I  have  here  and  throughout  put  the 

words  ^(opos  and  kaxdpa  under  the  head  of  superposition  rather 

than  of  proximity.     For  whenever  fire  is  mentioned,  it  is  clearly 

a  case  of  superpos.,  while  elsewhere  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that 

the  ^<op6s  regularly  presented  a  foundation  upon  which  the  sacri- 

ficers  stood,  and  that  the  eaxdpa  was  in  all  likelihood  surrounded 

with  a  paved  space  upon  which,  e.  g.  suppliants  sat.     Else  why 

the  mention  of  ashes  in  i;  153  ^y  untop  kqt  ap  tC^r  in   i^x'^pd  f" 
/       > 

KOPlTiaiP  i 

In  Imroiip  of  the  above  list  Giseke  in  Ebeling's  Lex.  Homer, 
sees  the  genitive.  And  it  is  true  that  except  once  in  Aesch.  /m' 
always  takes  the  genitive  of  this  word.  But  ^aXXw  in  o  182  can 
hardly  take  the  gen.,^  nor  would  that  vjonstruction  be  supported 
by  the  usage  of  €m^d\\a>  (4  times  in  Hm.),  for  in  the  only  passage 
where  the  gen.  appears  with  it  (z  68)  the  verb  is  in  the  middle 
voice. 

In  B  89  ireTOPTai  eV'  apBeai,  iirl  is  *  tOWards.'  So  tOO  in  ^  821  eV' 
avxivi  Kvpe.  In  t)  I20-2I  oyxpr}  fV  oyxvr)  yripdaKci,  prjXop  d'  iirX  pri\(Oy 
aiirap  cVt  (TTa(f)v\rj  crra^uXjJ,  (tvkop  5'   eVi   avKco,  the  image  of  SUperpos. 

is  almost  as  strong  (yrjpdaKfi  =  iriiTTfi)  as  in  the  phrases  poipav  (jiopop, 

^  See  infra  p.  56 


^ 


12 

SXy.a,  .08o.,  oWa,  <P"-0  ^--  -^'  "-  (^  509-     E  384.    Z  357.    ^  400. 
406.    e  554.    X  560.     r  592),  or    in   eVt   (7a)/x«TC    icupcra.  (F  23).       Kut  in 

accordance  with  the  classification  they  usually  receive,  I  have 
omitted  them  from  the  above  list.  tVi  irpoeCpoiai  (s  496.  a  103)  is 
also  here  and  elsewhere  regularly  excised  from  the  list  of  con- 
cretes, though  I  should  prefer  to  follow  Gerlach  ^Philologus, 
XXX'  p.  503)  in  understanding  by  Trpo'^vpa  a  portico  or  covered 
space  before  the  gates  of  the  court.  See,  however,  Buchholz, 
Homer  ische  Re  alien,  II  2,  p.  96. 

<Vi  c.  Dat  —  Proximity. 


ioxo-r^h  ^  391  <rr^<^^,     i  1 82.     k  96 

(La   Roche  reads  -^y,  citing 
*  280).     [Hm.  PL] 

^i/pjo-i  B  788.    (T  239  r]iTTai.    X  ^S^- 

>/r49.     [Hd.  6] 

jcdTTT/o-i  e  434  KUTibrja-av.    d  40  »caW- 

KXrjIai^   n    170.      ^   419    «^^tCov  = 
a  579.      0   37   d;?(ru^«t'oi.      t  103 

<a^rCo»'  =  179  =  47^  =  563  =  ^ 

638  =  /i    146  =  0    221  =  549  = 
V  76. 

Kp';»'?? »'  408.     o  442.     ["^'J 

Xt>i'27  Y  390. 

vrfvaiA  559.    B  4.    A  513.    E  79I. 

Z  50.    e  l80  76Va)/xat.     380.     531 

€y€lpofi€v.     I  425-     K  306.     381. 

A  135.     M  38.     90.     246.    403. 

N  107.     333  v€€(r(TU    381.     762. 

832.    3  5I»/«a-a-t.    57.    65.    367. 

O  44.     248.     459.     494-    722 

v(€(T(Ti.  U  18.  201.  547.  2  7 
K\oueovTai.  259.  294.  304. 
T71.      135  Weo-o-t.      160.      236. 


*  135-   X334-   ^  254.    fi  248.' 
[Hm.  3.  Ar.  Hd.  Th.  X.] 
65(0  z  15.    M  168.    n  261. 

TTfipaai  yairjs  i  284. 

TTTOs  B  523.     [Hm.] 

noTafi^    E    598.       e    490    ayayo)!/. 

[X    6] 
npoxoTjai  P  263. 
rrpvfxvijiii  e  475.      S   32-      O   S^S- 

2  76.  447.     [Eur.] 
pr}ypriPiA^37'   ©501-  ^430-  575- 

i  150.169. 547.559-  ti86.  /x6. 

0499. 
po.^y  n  719. 

araSp-olai  p  20. 

rn<^pa)A48.  51.     M  76.  85.     S67^f 

[Hd.] 
Tflxop   H   440    ai»TW.      I    349    a^^<{P- 

[X.     Cf.  Tcix^W  Eupolis] 

(^cir*/?;  E  271.     Z  506.     K  568  KaT€- 

biiuav.  o  263  (i^'/y.  Magn.  5 1 , 
10  reads  (^uTj/i/p).  Q  280.  a  535 
=  X  411.  Always  at  end  of 
V.  exc.  in  K  568.     [4] 


^  KArjideq  =  aKaAuoi,  not    l^vyd.       So    Doederlein,    Homertsches    Glossarium , 
§2115,  followed  by  Eberhard  in  Ebeling's  Lexicon,  and  by  Buchholz,  Horn. 

Real.  II  I,  p.  262. 

»€7ri    V7]val  =  towards   after   eAawEtv  (E  327.    A  274.     400-    0  259.    Q  392). 
(ftkpeadaL  (0  743),  kyeipELv  (0  603)  and  vUaOai  (X  392). 


^3 


U'}. 


'aX(^«w  a  712. 

'A(ra)7r«»  K  287. 
'EXXi;(r7rdi/T<»  H  86. 
K^XabovTi  H  133. 
ZavBcd  E  479. 


O) 


82. 


2aT»'idcm  *  87* 
2Kapdvdp<a  E  36  jcadelo-cc. 

"yxXo)  y  392. 

'QKfavw  K  511.      >//■  244. 


The  contents  of  this  list  should  be  noted,  that  its  primitive  con- 
creteness  may  be  compared  with  the  wide  development  of  the 
later  period.     Nine  words  are  the  names  of  rivers,  with  which 

should  be   classed  Kprjvjjy   Xifxvr),   m^y.^s,   norafK^y   Trpo^offai,   norjsy  rdc^po), 

as  all  denoting  waters  upon  whose  margin  the  subject  stands. 
Now  since  the  step  from  i-nX  ^etXfi  ra^pov  (a  dat.  of  superpos.)  to 
fVt  rac^po)  is  an  easy  one,  and  since  the  image  of  superpos.  remains 
as  clear  in  the  latter  as  in  the  former  phrase,  all  the  above  words, 
as  also  oSw,  could  be  entered  without  much  forcing  among  the 
dats.  of  superpos.,  leaving  the  present  list  to  consist  of  eleven 
words.  Of  these  eleven,  (oxariri  ^ind  ivtipaai  (yairjs)  might  also 
readily  join  the  other  group,  but  that  the  superpos.  of  the  one 
object  upon  the  other,  owing  to  the  distance  of  the  image  called 
up,  fades  away  and  we  descry  only  proximity.  Three  others— 
KdTrrjaiy  (jidTprfy  KXT/Icri— need  historical  interpretation.  As  a  conse- 
quence the  list  almost  disappears,  and  eVi  c.  dat.  in  Homer  when 
with  concrete  things  is  found  to  present  almost  invariably  super- 
position. 

To  be  excluded  from  both  lists,  because  not  purely  local  or  not 

sufficiently  concrete,  are  eVi  ^oval  Z  424.  v  209.  221.  363,  Kredrecrai 
E  154.  I  482.  a  218.  o  89,  o€<T(Ti  E  137.  Z  25.  A  106,  ao7ai  ^  369, 
</)p€tTt  A  55.   e  218.    €  427.   X  146.   o  234.    a  158.    (f)  I,  avdp<i>iTot(ri  v  60. 


fVt  c.  Gen.  — 

dyKUiVOi   K  80  dp^a)^€tV.      H  702  /S^ 

{V,  I.  vir'').      ^  494. 
dypov  a  185  earrriKiP.      l<^0.     tt  33^* 

383.     x47-     0)212.308. 

uKfirji  {^vpov)  K  173  to-Tarai. 
aKprjs  6  508  epvaapTus.      [Th.  X.] 

oKT^ff  Y  50  -diop.  (^  1 25  La  Roche 
reads  KaB  d'  ap  okt^s  with  six 

MSS.)        €  82   KndijiJi€Pos.        151 
Ka6r]p€POs.     K  140  KaTr)yay6p.€<Tda. 

[i.  2.  Eur.] 


Superposition. 

apia^a    Q.    I90    avrijy,    drjaai.        267 

avT^s.      [Th.] 
dnrjPTjs  Q  275  VTj€ov  .  .  .  airoiva,    447* 

C  252  TiOii.     [Hm.] 

^(opa>p  bases  rj  100  ((xraaap.      [l.  2. 

3.  Ar.  Hd.  Th.] 

yairjs  N  565  (v.  /.  dat.).     p  27  yfjs. 

^Ss^SxTip.    041.    [1.3.  X.  PI.] 
di(f)pov  G  578  Kab  d\  .  .  elarap.    p  602 

(CfT.    T  97  avTov  =  </)  177  =  182. 

u,  408  €C€t\    [Hm.] 


14 


tivduv  mooring- stones  s  77  opfxiV- 

r]t,6uoi    "*•    61    Kvyiar     .  .  .    kKvC^okov 

(La  Roche,  towards). 
f]fxi6va>v  mule-car  Q  702  K^ififvov. 

Tjneipoio,  -ov  A  485  tpvacrav.    a  1 62. 

y  90.    185  /S^/iCV  =  K  56.    ^  1 36. 

»r  325  €pv(T<Tav  =  359-  367- 
Bpopov  A  536  <a^eC<T'.     2  389  Kadel- 

aev.      422    tCe.      Q  522   Kar    .  .  . 

(Cfv.    €  195  Kn^c'C^r'.     ?7l62€raav. 

169  (lo-c.      K  314  ^to-€.      366  €t(r€. 

o^  157  Kar'  .  .  .  eC^T.      v  96  KaW- 

^;/KCV.        <^    139    f"^'  •  •  •  «'C«'''  = 

166  =  >/^  164.     [Hm.] 
tTTTra)!/  chariot  E  249.   M  82.  2  531 

^avTii.    Q  356.     (In  P  459  rolcrt 

is  perhaps  the  Trojans.) 

KOpv(f)ris  N  12  5<rro.      S  I57  rjpcvov. 

[2.  Ar.] 

Xapnrfjp  r  63  avTayp,  vrjTja-av. 

p€\iT]S  X  225  epciadeis. 

p.r]p6sy  -iov  A  461  avTwi/  5  (opoderrjcrav 

=  B  424  =  7  458  =M  361- 
pr)Syv,    -Off  E  55O  e;r(V^r;»'.   [G  528 

c^opeovo-t.]  N  665  €^aiu€.    U  223 

^^Ac'.     0171  a0iK€o.      260  wx^''**- 

^  322    icov.      d  489    wXfT.      817 

I3r;.     ^  500  ^a^TCS.      t  535  f^^oi. 

X   115    i/€tai.       508  rjyayov.       534 

€^aiv€v.     p  358.     f  216  oixw^rai. 

^  188  a0iK€o.     295  eVfforaro.     298 

(TToprjV.        357     €^atvov.        o    452 

ayoi^'.       547  ejS;?.      p  160  rjpfvos, 

fVi  vT/wv  in  E  700  (jrpoTpiirovTo  piKaivaoiv  eVi  vt^wv)  means  '  toward 

the  ships.' 

fTTi  c.  Gen 


249  a^o).     T  238  lovTi.     243  atrf- 
ntpnov.      259    w^fT*.      339    to)*'. 

(^  39  (pxopfvos.   >(/'  1 7^  *'^*'*    <"  ^  1 7 
(iTfadai.      301  e(XjiXi;^ay.       [Hm. 

3.  4.  X.  PI.] 
ovdov  threshold  a  104  o-t^.     6718 
r^.     K  62  «Co/x€^'.     p  339  *C«- 

o-  33.      ;(  203  €(f)t(TTa(rap. 

6x^<op  e  455.     [Hy.  3] 

UTjprjs  p  357  KaT(drjK€P. 
TTvpyaiP  ©  519  Xc|a(r^at.      I  588  ^al- 
pop.    M  265.    n  700  TTvpyov  tart). 

O     526    TTVpyOV,    €(TTrJK€l„        All     at 

end  of  V.     [Hm.  3.  Hd.  X.] 

aapidos  4>  S^  ^^' 

aavpajT^pos  K  153* 

(rxeStf/?    f    33.        163    avTTjs,    Tr?i$ai. 

338  rt€.    T?  264.  274.    [X.] 

TcXapo)!/    A    38    avTov    {v,  I.    avT<f), 

(\f\lKTO   dpilKOiP. 

rpdiTfCa    A    629    avT^s    (v.   I.    -t^). 
[4.      Cf.  6.  PL] 

TpOTTlOS  T   278.         [Hm.] 

X^paov  3  284  Q^Trjp.     k  459  =  X  4OI 
=  408  =  0)111.      T278  ?*c^aX€. 

<B  291.     All  at  end  of  v. 

Xdopos    T    293    KaredrfKCP.       Y    345 

Kelrat  (Barocc.  x^fl^O-     *^  470 

«^>^'-      [l-  2.  3] 
copap  A  46.    K  170  aJpou.    [Hm.  3] 

Box>iTpa<riov     A    756     ^r}<rap€P    (La 

Roche,  towards). 


((Txari^s  €  489  (z/.  /.  dat.).      (T  358. 

[Hm.  Hs.  2.  6] 

Kparos  (kiptpos)  t  I40.      i'  I02.  346. 
\  Sypov  2  557  €aTt]K€t. 


—  Proxiynity. 

irrjyai  X  1 53  avrdoiv,  nXvpui  .  .  .  c'yyvf 

lacri.      [Hm.  X.  PL] 
X^pdov  17  278  ^irjaaro  Kvpa.       o  495 

Xvov  toTia. 


15 

fV*  cVxart^ff  t  280  (etrxfff  •  •  •  •  »'^a)  is  perhaps  best  taken  with  La 
Roche  as  '  toward.'  So  nepdap  (nfppas)  vrjaiop  tin  *  454,  X  45,  though 
Giseke  in  Ebeling's  Lexicon  has  them  =  supra,  in.  Too  proble- 
matic to  be  included  is  a  278  =  ^  197  Uhpa)  oaaa  €OiK€  (jyiXrjs  cmTraidos 

(ireadai.     For  the  forms  in  -(fyip,  see  p.  8. 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  this  last  list,  as  with  the  datives  of 
prox.,  the  image  of  superpos.  is  still  clear,  (?«'answering  almost  as 
well  as  at  even  in  English. 


bj     Hesiod  and  the  Homeric  Hymns. 
€m  c.  Dat,  =  Superposition. 


&KTais  Sc.  213   5oTo.      Hy.  7,  3 
a^cTv     [Hm.  3.  6] 

avx^Pi  5'  217  /cctrai.      [3] 
/3X«(/)apoi?    Hs.    Frg.    5,   4    mnTep. 

[Eur.] 

^oval  Op.  434   apoTpov  .  .  .  jSaXoio. 
jSwpotf   Op.  136  IpScii/.      [l.  2.   3. 

Ar.  X.  6] 

yain  3>  339-     [Hm.  2.  3.  4.  Th. 
X.  6.  PL] 

•yXooo-o-J?  Theog.  83  ;^eioucrti/.      [2] 
yovpaai    Epigr.  4.      Batr.    3   BrjKa. 

[X.  6] 

Ipyoii  fields  Op.  549  dr]p  .  .  TfTarai. 
^oipjiai  Sc.  233  dnrjapevvT  . 

^XeVrpo)  Epigr.  15,  10. 

BeipiXia  2,  117  avTolSi  tdrjKf. 

e^peeXois  [Theog.  816]. 

KapTjPois  Sc.  236  edoP€iTo  .  .  .  <f)6^os. 

KapiTco  wrist  2,  18. 

iroXa)»/<»  5,  272,  298.      [Hd.] 
Kparl  Sc.   136    Kvpir)p    eBrjKC.      6,    J 

eOrjKap. 
jcpoTo^ot?  Sc.  137  dpapviap.      Batr. 

131-      [4] 
/iAeacrt  TheOg.  I52  =673  (ir€(f)v- 

KOP  =  Sc.  76  =  Op.  149. 

pvs  Batr.  91  avrw. 


pa>T(0    Op.     544    apc^i^aXiy.      [Hd. 

Th.] 

ovSfi  3,  149,  284  Ka6i(rarai. 

ov6a>  (yrjpaos)  Op.  3.3^' 

ox^DSy  -rjariy  -ais  Batr.  1 66  earrjaap. 

223.  247.  [X.] 
[oxotcrt  5,  19  at  end  of  v.  "lam 
Vossius,  postea  Grashof,  ox«- 
o-(^ti/  pro  oxoKTip  scribendum 
esse  iure  censuerunt."  Ebe- 
ling's  Lex.,  s.  v.  oxos  (2).] 
[Hm.] 

TTcSio)  2,  42  a-TTJs. 

irerpij  Sc.  406.    375  aXXijXi/y.     Hy. 

3,  124,404.     [2.  3.  Ar.] 

nXarapoiPi  3,  1 28  ilpvaaro. 

irnpTQi  2,  216. 

7rpo(ra)7rQ)  lO,  2.      [Hs.  4*  "] 

(r;/paTi  Epigr.  3.     [Hd.] 

Tvp^co  Epigr.  3. 

vdari  Batr.  74.  99.  (In  v.  61  eV 
should  be  read  with  3  MSS, 
Matthiae,  and  Franke.  In  v. 
89  v0',  Bothe's  correction,  is 
necessary  to  the  sense).  [Hd.] 

x6opI  Theog.  556.  564.     Sc.  162. 

462  icd/SjSaXe.   Op.  90.  157.  252. 

Frg.  14,  4.     [i.  2.  3] 


4i 


i6 


^afxd6ois    2,  329    fpva-avTO.      3,    79 

€ppi\lr€v. 
*^fvj}  3,  388. 


aXXjjXot?  Sc.  [379]  ntarov,  SC.  (Ji^dpcr. 
avT«    Batr.    205   apa^rjare   5*  rci;^* 


€7r    auTW. 


'Ayx**^??  4'  ^70  ^^^°^  ^X^^^' 


fir  I 


I  c.  Dat  =  Proximity, 


(axarij  Theog.  622  fW.     Frg. 

156,5.     [Hm.Pl.] 
evpvai  3,  26.   Epigr.  II.   [Hd.6] 
icpm  19.  20.     [Hs.] 

mlpaari  4>  227. 


p€(0poi9  I,  18. 

piyy/xli/i  2,  312,  327,  330. 

'AX<^fic3  34,  3. 


Excluded  from  both  lists  are  jSov^t' Theog.  290.    Hy.  3,  200,  316, 
556.   npo^dro^a.  3.  571-   <^P-^'  2,  197,  SS^-  4>  1 5  because  either  not 
purely  local  or  not  concrete.     Op.  750  M^'  ^'^'  aKiv^roLai  Kad^C^pev 
is  of  problematic  meaning,  while  in  Op.  162  Rzach  reads  lct> 
instead  of  6<^'. 

fVi  c.  Gen.  =  Superposition. 


aHapavTOi  5c.  231* 

dTT^vrji  Sc.  273.     [Hm.] 
^a>pS>p  Theog.  [557]-     [i-  2.  3. 
Ar.  Hd.  Th.] 

di<t)p(OP    Sc.     306    ^e^a«^€ff.        321 
Si'^pou,  e6p€.     Hy.  5, 198  6t#oi;, 
?}ar\      [Hm.] 
^ctpov  Op.  624  f putrai.    Hy.  2,310 

fpCa-aadf.      7,  22  a(^w/xci'. 
Opovov  4,   165  KaTidr]K€.      [Hm.] 
jcXio-fioIo  5,  193  €§pi""<^^"*-    [Hm.] 
itpr^vawv  Op.  758  ovpilv.      [Hm.  2. 

Hd.  X.] 

/ii^Xijy  Frg.  228  dXerpeuovo-i.    [Hm. 
2] 


vr)69  Theog.  998  5ya>i/.     Op.  236 

vr]aiVy    via-a-ovrai.        Hy.    2,     3IO 
opovaa.    7,  10  eicrai/.    45.    [Hm. 

3.  4.  X.  PL] 

7rpo<Ta>7Tov  Sc.  I47.     [Hy.  2.  4.  PL] 

TTtVyoi/ Sc.  242.   [Hm.  3.  Hd.X.] 

(TfXpuTos  7>  47'     [3] 

x6ov6s  I,  133.     20,  3.     [i.  3] 

Xo>pr]S  3,  123  Kflr, 

A^Xov  I,  49  f^i](Taro.       I  1 5  e^ati/e. 
Kui/^ou  1,  141  c^n^ao. 
T€\(l>ov<Tr}s  2,  62  ^ns  (sc.  y^ff  ?     Cf. 
AijXou,  BovTTpao-t'ov  A  75^)* 


There  seem  to  be  no  cases  where  ^ni  c.  gen.  denotes  proximity. 


1 


I 


i 


17 


2.— Lyric. 


€7rt  ^.  Z?^/.  =  Superposition, 


alfTos  Pind.  P.  I,  7  ^01,  vTTvov  Kart- 
oKTalai  Pind.  P.  4,  36  $npQjp.   [Hm. 

3.6] 

a»/^eo-i  Solon  25. 

aix^Pi  Theogn.  1357  ^vyop  .  .  . 
Kchai,      [3] 

p\€(l)dpoia-L  Phocyl.  (?  See  Bergk, 
n,  p.  72)  KcWtjTui,  Theogn. 
208  €C€To.  Pind.  Py.  9,  24 
y\€(f)dpois.      [3] 

(ScofjLc^  Pind.  O.  6,  70.  (The  MSS 
show  no  iota.  Boeckh,  how- 
ever, says  that  Pind.  did  not 
use  the  gen.  in  ©.)  Pind.  Frg. 
129  -o7s.     [i.  2.  3.  Ar.  X.  6] 

yaa-rpi  Archil.  72  npoar^ake'iv. 
yXaxrai]   Theogn.  85   e.  y\.   re   koi 

6(^)6 oKpoia LP  €7r€aTip  |  al8m,   Pind. 

O.    6,    82   86^av    €x^   ^**''   f.   7^. 

QKOpas  Xiyvpas.      [2] 

8€p8pe(o    Pind.   Frg.    230  ^aipeiv. 

[Hd.] 
€vpa2s  Pind.  p.  9,  12  ^dXcp.     [X.] 
Kopv^ah  Critias  7, 9  KaOi^r).   [Hm. 

X.] 

KpTJpPols     Pind.    O.     3,     22     ^A\(j)€OV. 

[Hd.] 
Xe;^6Wo-t     Pseud.  -  Phocyl.     189. 

[Eur.] 
6d^  Pind.  O.  10,  30. 

fiti/j/o-t  Anacr.  I  Arjdaiov. 

(crxdpT)  Semonid.  Amorg.  7,  47 

((t6Ui.     [X.  6] 
itTxaTiaicn  Alcaeus  69.     [Hm.] 


vo-So)  Sappho  93.     [Eur.] 

oa-aois  Sappho  29  dpneraaop, 

6cf)dd\p,o7ai    Theogn.    85.       See 

yXoxro-jy  S2lpra. 
ocjipvart  Anacr.  54  dep^poi. 

oxBais  Pind.  p.  12,  2.     N.  9,  22. 

[X.] 
Tiapfjai  Phrynicus  2. 
TTcraXoto-i  Ibycus  8. 

TreVpaiy  Simonid.  58,  2  i/aietj'.     [2. 

3-Ar.] 

7rpo(TQ)7T(p     Sappho      100      KexvTai, 

[Hs.'4.  6] 
o-ttjXt}  Pseud.-Simonid.  183,  4. 

o-0vpcp  Pind.  Is.  7  (6),  13  (araa-as. 

[2] 
;t«iXe(7i   Plato    I,  I.      32,  7  ^aipop. 

[Cl.  Hd.  Th.  ;;(eiX€OS'  ra^pov] 

;;(^oi/t  Theogn.  799.   ^rchil.  56,  2. 
[Aristot.]  5,  12.     [i.  3] 

"iBa  Pind.  N.  10,  71  TrXSfe  Kepavi/di/. 

dX6x<p  Pseud. -Phocyl.  186  x^'^po^ 

^dXrjai. 
dpepL  Cleobulina  I  KoXXrfa-aPTa. 
naidi   Pseud. -Phocyl.  210  rp€06tt' 

XaLTTjp.      Ion  I,  7  aXXo),  TTfO-jy. 
roio-Seo-t  (sc.  irpdypaai)  Critias  4,  3 

(TchpayXs  d    T}p€T€pr)9  yXoiaarjs  (ttI 

Toiadecri  Kelrai, 


Proximity. 

0vpais  Pind.  N.  I,  ig ea-Top.  [Hd.  6] 
Kpdpa  Pind.  P.  4,  294.     [Hs.] 
XipvT)  Theogn.  7.     [Hd.] 
fjLvXa  Alcman  70.     [Hs.] 


\ 


i8 

xy     ..}    AA      [^^  vbar,.  Find.  N.  3,  4-     [^^'l 

rr6\€<ji  Carm.  Popul.  44-     L3J 

c:n1nn  28.     Aristot.  53 
„poxo.,a.  Solon  2S  p.^^  Q  g_  ^_ 

.-,..„.     Sunon  d.  ,.0  *  .  p.^^   p   ^^_  ^^ 

^^'  ^^-A  ^N    .    I^  KaaraXm  Find.  P.  4.  I^S- 

Archil.  13:  xoX^.  V^P  o..  t,..  ^<^'  ,W.  gives  no  longer  a  concrete 
image,  hence  is  excluded. 


ETTt  ^.  Gen.  = 


aypoO  Bacchyl.  49,  i- 

aw.  (^poC)  Theogn.  557.     ^^- 

monid.  97,  i- 
dp/xdro,.  Hippon.  42.  I  ^'*'  «P;  ^' 

Find.  O.  I,  77-     [3] 
aarrt'So.    Tyrtae.   n,    31   ^>^'^°^- 

Find.  F.  8,  46.     [Hm.  3] 
arpdKTo,  Adesp.  52  (MS  -TO,). 
^aBi^lZo,  Find.  N.  5'  i  ^'^^^^'■'• 
^co^^i.  Bacchyl.  13)  3-    [i-  2.  3- 

Ar.  Hd.  Th.] 
-y;)?  Tyrtae.  10,  31   aTrjpixO^is - 

II,  22.     [i.  3-  ^-  ^^-1 
Y\c;,<7crr?v  Theogn.  815   ^oO.  .  .  . 

eTn^alv<ov.  Adesp.  87 -a?.  [Hs. 

2.   3] 

ii6v(dv  Sappho  30. 

edKco  Alcman  87  W.   So  Bergk. 

[3]  ^^ 

tTTTTou  Corinna  14,  i.     L3J 


Superposition, 

UvKi7rn<0v    (SC.    &pfxdr(Ov)     Anacr. 

12  B. 
vr,i»/  Simonid.  105,  3-     l^^'  3- 

4.  X.  FL] 

^vXov  Carm.Fopul.  34,  3  <aerjtievrjv. 

6\Kdbo9  Find.  N.  5.  2. 

TreVpay  Carm.  Fopul.  46,  25  KG^r 

^..o.    ("circa    01.    122,    3>" 
Bergk).     [i.  2.  3-  ^^-3 
u^Xco.  Hippon.42,1.     Seedppi- 

ra)i/  supra. 

l>Lv6,  Herodas  ^  ^  .  -  -  rfjv  xo^^ 

.  .  .  €X'      MSS  plpas. 
pvridcov  FlatO  30,  2  enecTTiP  €>?. 
(r(/)i'po»'  Sappho  70  ra  ^pa/c€'  ?XKr,^. 

[2] 
rpax^Xou  Adesp.  22  ^m.e. 

xetpo.   Theogn.  490  (doubtful). 

[Hm.J 
^^pa,  Find.  F.  4,  273-     [^^-1 


There  seems  to  be  but  one  passage  in  which  proximity  might 

i  nere  secuia  t'-'    ^  r  ^:*:^r»    w  hotter    \]Z.  novrov 

be  denoted,  though  here,  too,  superposition  is  better, 
.'„'  Ei^cW  Simonid.  (?  See  Bergk,  III,  p.  516.) 


19 
3. — Tragedy. 


€7ri  c.  Dat.  = 

ayKuXaty  Iph.  A.  615  Se^ao-^e. 
Iph.  T.  7-?5'0.^     Ion  761  Xa^fiv. 

oKTais  Fers.  9^j  ("fortas.  dyais,'' 
Wecklein).  Hec.  28.  36. 
698.  Hipp.  1179  (Kirchh. 
and  Wilam.-MoUend.  a/cray). 
Andr.  1018  -alai.  Hel.  609 
-ai(TL.  739.  Iph.  A.  807.  Iph. 
T.  272.  932.  Eur.  Frg.  636, 
2.     [Hm.  3.  6] 

avTvyi  RheS.  2j6  ^air)  (avTvya  ?). 
a^ocrt  Phoen.  1 194  f'frTjBdip  a^0P€S. 
apfxari    Fhoen,    II 10    (T(f)dyi     ex<»>V' 

[2.  3.  Ar.  Hd.  X.  FL] 

da-mdi  Fhoen.  [1120].  1 124  eVi- 
ar]p.a.      \_2.  3.  Ar.  Hd.  X.] 

^oarpvxois  Bacch.  757  "^'^'P  ^ii^pop* 

^cafxols   Aesch.  Suppl.   6^4  Biiar. 

Alces.  133.    [i.  2.  3.  Ar.  X.  6] 

ya  Ant.  IJ4  7r€(r€.      [Hm.  2.  3.  4. 

'  Th.  X.^  6.  FL] 

yXoiaa-Tj  Ag.  36  ^ovs.    Aesch.  Frg. 

316  kXtjs.       O.  C.  I0J2  kXtJs  .  .  . 

^e/Sa/ce.       [2] 
SeXro)  Iph.  A.  155. 
dippLOia-i  Cycl.  4pp. 
deprj  Orest.  1653. 

dofiois  Med.  I2yo  ttItpopt    .  .  .  axq. 

[3] 

ep/cft  bezel  of  ring  Trach.  615 

€(Txdpa  Eum.  108.      [X.  6] 
^vy^  befich  Ag.    16 1 8.     Fhoen. 
74  Ka6i(€T.    yoke  Heracl.  854 

a-radiPT.      RheS.  766. 

6dKois  Iph.  A.  795.     [2] 


Superposition . 

iTTTTot?  Aesch.  Frg.  38  €fin€(f)vp- 
fiepoi.     [2.3.  Ar.  Hd.X.6.  FL] 
Kapa  Bacch.  833.     Troad.  937. 
KapTT^  ivrist  Ion  1009. 

ACO^TW  Alces.  2^4  €X<OP  x^P^  •  •  • 
Xapcoj/. 

Kpdp€i  Eur.  Elec.  4^0.     [Cf.  *cpa- 

viov  4] 
Kpari   Ant.  IJ4J  €t(7jiXaro.      Med. 

1065.  Bacch.  831.  Hel.j7^ 
X^pas  t6r]K€p.     Here.  Fur.  640 

Kclrat.      [Hm.J 
prji    Fhll.    891    ovnl    VT)t  *  .  .  TTOPOS' 
Hel.  II 35   voncri,  pe^eXap  (i.  e, 

Helen)  aya>p.  Iph.  T.  nog 
(MSS  ip).  [i.  2.  3.  Ar.  Hd. 
Th.  X.] 

i/coTO)  Aesch.  Suppl.  go  TrtTrrei. 
Hel.  774  T^dprov.  842  Tvfx^ov, 
984  ru/iiSou.     [Hd.  Th.] 

ofifxacTL  Aj.  51  ^aXov(Ta.    O.  C.  1 68^ 

^€^aK€.      Fhoen.    950    ^aX<op. 

[3] 

6fjL(f)aXa  Eum.  40.     [FL] 

oo-o-oiy    Hec.   9/5.      Alces.   26g 

€(f)ep7r€i» 

6({)daXiJLols  Sept.  403  TTcVot.     Iph. 

A.  5. 
6x0(0  Hera.c\.  ySi,   (For  Choeph. 

4  see  infra.)     [Cf.  o;^^at  X.] 
o^ots  From.  710  paiovdL.     Troad. 

569.     [Hm.] 
napTJai  Fhrynicus  13. 

Trao-o-aXfe  HeC.  p20.      [Ar.] 

TTf'Sa)  Heracl.  75  x^p-^^ov. 

IT fT pais  Bacch.  306.     [2.  3.  Ar.] 


^  Italic  figures  denote  lyric,  black  figures  anapaestic  passages. 


20 


21 


TTvpi  Ion  yoy. 

TTvpyois  Ag.  357  e/3a\fff.       [l.  3] 
po6l(o  I  ph.  T.  ^^5  dpaiJ.6vT€S. 
aeXfiaai  Sept.  32  (TTiWrjre.      [Hy.] 

aK^TTTpois  Ag.  75.  Orest.  1058. 
[Ar.] 

aKomXoiai  lon  87I.    ^^79- 
apiKpols    O.    C.    /^<5   €.    <7/x.    /u€-yaff 

O-TToSo^    Ant.    1007    €TrjK€TO. 

areppois  lon  995. 
aafiari  Cho.  723.       [3] 
Ta0a>    Orest.    471     X"«^     ;^eo/ifi'Op. 
Hel.  986  KetaopeaOa.      [Hd.  6] 

ToixoKTi  Ion  115^" 

rpirrodi  Orest.  /<5^. 

)(^6ovi    Trach.   8ii.      Hec.   486. 

(TTi  c.  Dai.  — 

bpocTois  I  ph.  A.  182  Kpr]vaiai(ri. 

dojpaai  Oi est.  I2SS'  Phoen.  iSJJ- 
€ax(ipais  Alces.  iig.     [X.] 
iGTois  loom  Bacch.  514. 

KOiirrj  Alces.  361.   4JP  -a. 

Xalcpeai  Troad.  690. 
p(\d6pois  Here.  Fur.  6pi. 
P€Kp(2  Aj.  1 3 19. 
orrXois  Eur.  Suppl.  674. 
nayah  Eur.  Frg.  //J,  33. 

TToXei  Trach.  246  /3e^coy  (local 
signif.  is  sufficient).     [3] 

TTuXots  Prom.  729.  Sept.  631. 
Ant.  141.    Aj.  49.    Alces.  loo, 

TTvpa  Troad.  483.     [3] 


Med.  4J4  ^ivq  vaUii  x^'    Herc. 
Fur.  849.  Iph.A.  1587.  [1,3] 

XpoiTL  Ant.  246  TraKvvas, 
yl^ap-ddois  Hipp.  235. 

(ofiois  Trach.  564  (pepau.  Phoen. 
1 131  (})€pQiv.  Bacch.  755  tOeauv. 
Eur.  Frg.  863  (j)epa>p.  [Hm. 
3.  Hd.  6.  PI.] 

dWrjXoKTi  Pers.  506  ttItttov.      O.  C. 

1620  dp(f)iK€ip(voi.      [P^'J 
yvvT]  Aj.  1295  ((P  Jl  Xa^a>v  .  .  .  avhpa. 
'iXiciai  Androm.  JOI  (vyov  fjXvdc. 

pot  Trach.  ^81  ^apos. 

Trapdevoi  O.  C  161I  avrals,  irrC^ai 

.  .  .  ;^€rpay. 
o-oi  Eur.  EleC.  I344  "^X^os  ^dWovai. 

Proximity. 

prjyplai  Iph.  T.  253. 

poalff  Phoen.  574.     Hel.  52.   124. 
Eur.  Elec.  1273.  Eur.  Frg.  14. 
(TKrjvais  Aj.  3.     Hec.  733. 

arirodco  O.  T.  21. 

(TT€(l)dpoiai  Phoen.  y86. 

(T(Pay^  Hel.  1582  ravpfico,  aradiU. 
Tfpdpvois  Hipp.  ^j'<5. 

Tvp^(p  Eur.  Elec.  1326. 
Xfvpaai  Phoen.  79J. 

KvKXandoiai  Here.  Fur.  998. 
2ip6€VTi  Troad.  810. 
Tpoia  Phil.  353.   611. 


It  is  not  certain  whether  superpos.  or  proxim.  should  be  under- 
stood in   Choeph.  4  rvp^ov  5'  eV'  oxOa  T<^d€  K^pvaao)  noTpi,  and  in 

Soph.  Frg.  342  ptdeis  ivavipLOv  Xipvas  e'0'  v\lrr)Xah  (XTnXddeaai  (of  PoSCl- 

don).  The  readings  are  corrupt  in  Herc.  Fur.  1003  e.  X6(f)<o  Ktap, 
Hipp.  1 195  €(f)'  dp^xari,  while  in  Eur.  Frg.  628  in  ea-xnpat^  Ammo- 
nius*  citation  has  eax^P'^^-     To  the  words  regularly  excluded,  as 


r. 


i 


€^6Bois,  TTpoBupois,  T€pp.a(ri,  TOTTois — for  which  see  Append.  A,  5 — must 
be  added  Avbols  Trach.  356,  Xovrpolai  Soph.  Elec.  445,  yirvxfi  Ant. 
317,  pinlat.  Soph.  Frg.  511,  aT€(f)dvoi(n  Phoen.  831,  Kcp/ciVi  Ion  506,  in 
which  there  is  either  lack  of  concreteness,  doubt  in  interpretation, 
or  remoteness  of  metaphor.  In  Aesch.  finally  must  be  noted  em 
in  the  sense  oHowards  ox  for  in  Sept.  423,  714,  1059,  Suppl.  1003, 
Frg.  69. 

eVt  c.  Gen.  =  Superposition. 


dyKvpas   Hel.  IO71.      [Cf.  apiKpoh 

O.  C.  148] 
dypSiv  O.  T.  1049.  Eur.  Elec.  623. 
aKpijs  Hel.  897. 

aKpa>v     (SC.    daKTvXayp)     Aj.     I23O. 

[Cf.  X.] 

aKTrjSf  'ds  Pers.  449.    p6^  Oeivovras. 

Phil.  272.  Hec.  778  (dKTals  of 
the  same  fact  in  v.  698).  Iph. 
T.  1170.     [1.2.3] 

aTTTjvrjs  O.  T.  802  f>^€/3a)ff,    [Hm.] 

appiUTos    Aesch.    Frg.    38.      [3] 

See  hifra. 
ao-TTifioy  Sept.  387.  400.  478.  510. 

512.  520.  559.  661.    [Hm.3] 
doTpd^rjs  Adesp.  210. 
avx€V(ov  Pers.  191  TiOrjai.     (Orest. 

51  fV'  avx^'vos  ^aXflv  is  spurious. 

Seep.  57.)     [Hy.2.Hd.Pl.] 

fia'K^iScov  Ant.  IJ2. 

^X€(f)dp(ov  F.ur.  Suppl.  284.  [1.2] 
^(opov  Androm.  112^  carr].    Note 

Heracl.     238    Zevs)    60'    ov    av 
^oyptoi:  6aKf7s.     [l.  2.  3.  Ar.  Th.] 

y?}s  Soph.  Elec.  1 136.     Aj.  235 

yaias.      O.T.  1 13.  .416.      O.  C. 

7705  yds.    iyi2.     Orest.  233 

yalas,  dppoaai  noSas.  Hipp.  y6j 
€^aaav.  Alces.  869  iroba  ne^evcov. 
Hel.    S^S     '^'oda      p^pt/MTrrd/xepos. 

Troad.  884.     [i.  3.  X.  PL] 


ypapprj  Eur.  Frg.  382,  9  eV'  avrijs 
Tpels  KaTea-TijpiypivaL  (i.  e.  'e'). 

Sopojv  Orest.  1574  "Kpoiv.     [3] 
8op6s  ship  Androm.  ygj. 

edpas  O.  C.  85. 

iarias  Ag.  I435.      [6] 

LTTTToyp  Pers.  18.     Eur.  Frg.  675. 

[Aesch.] 
Kupopos  Agathon  Frg.  4  e^'  tVds-. 

KXipaKos       Iph.      T.       1382      SopQiP 

( Wecklein  reads  accus.).  [X.] 

Kpr]7Tl8(op    Herc.    Fur.    1008   e/ceiro. 

Ion  38  rienpL.     [X.] 

Xdos  O.  C.  ip^, 

Xexovs  Orest.  313  pep€.      [2] 

vaa>v  temples  Eur.  Elec.  6  t€0€ik€. 
vccoff  Pers.   18  vaiip.     Phil.  5/<5. 

648.       Iph.    T.    102.     1000. 

Rhes.    72   6p(tixTK03P.     97   p(Q)p. 

[Hm.  3.  4.  X.  PL] 

pTjorov  Phil.  613  ^ff  paid. 

^€pr)9  O.  C.  184.  563.     Androm. 

136. 
^vpod  Aesch.  Frg.  99,  22  €^r}p 

(so  Wil.-Mollen.).     Ant.  996. 

Herc.  Fur.  630  ejBrjT. 
o^ov  Bacch.  1070  l8pv(Tas.  [Hm.  2] 
oppdrcop  Ag.  1428.     Eur.  Suppl. 

286     ^aXovaa.        Plioen.      1452 
TiOrjcri.      [Hm.  3] 

6p6<pa)p  Aesch.  Suppl.  6^1. 


22 


Sp^coi/O.T./jq^.  [Hm.Hd.X.Pl.] 

TTcpyafXiov  I  ph.  A.  ^62  (TTaaovraL. 
TTcVpa?  Eur.  Suppl.  1045.     [l.  2. 
3.  Ar.] 

TTfTpOV    O.    C.    19' 

TToXcoff^y^ff  Androm.  ijy. 

TTpv^vrjs     Iph.    T.     1377     oradevTiS. 

[Hm.] 
TTvpa?  Eur.  Elec.  513.     Ion  1258 
(troch.  tetram.)  ?Cf-    [3-  6.  PL] 

nvpyayv  Phoen.  I09I  aKpa>p.    [Hm. 

3.  Hd.  X.] 

TTbiikov  O.  L-.  312  ^e^coaap. 

piTTos  Eur.  Frg.  397  nXeois. 
po7rrj9  Hipp.  1 163.     [Cf.  Th.  and 
PI.,  also  gen.] 


pojfirjs  Orest.  68  6xovp.€6a, 
(TKa\p.a)P  Iph.  T.  1347- 
o-w/zaror  Ag.  14^2.      [3.  7] 
Tponis     Hel.    412    €0'    rjs    €<TU)Or]v, 

[Hm.] 
X€p<Tov  Aesch.  Suppl.  178. 
x6ov6s  O.  C.   1256.     Med.  781. 

Cycl.  543  ed,.     [i.  2.  3] 

XOip-aros    Hec.    5^4    uKpov,    ((TTrjcr  . 
Orest.  116  ards.      [X.] 

xcopas  Trach.  300.     [Hd.] 

(opav  Soph.   Frg.   344.      Orest. 

1532  (troch.  tetram.).     Eur. 

Elec.  813  rjpav.      Rhes.   305. 

[Hm.  3] 


In  Aesch.  Frg.  38  cited  above  s.  v.  apfiaros  corruption  seems 
almost  a  certainty.  See  Blaydes  on  Aristoph.  Ran.  1403.  Ant. 
1 141  ex^rai  Trdvdafxos  ttoXi?  cVt  v6(rov,  even  with  the  aid  of  Hdt.  6,  II 

fVl  ^vpov  yap    a/c/i^f    ex^rai    rjfjuv    tci    nprjyfxaTa,  doeS    not    COnvey  tO  all 

scholars  the  image  of  superpos.,  Jebb  preferring  to  compare  en 

elprivrjs.      In  Med.   135  cV'  dp.(})nrv\ov  yap  ecrco  fxeXddpov  yoov  €k\vov  Weil 

drops  fTTi,  by  which  "  on  retablit  a  la  fois  le  sens  et  le  m.^tre,"  and 
Verrall  asks  why  ewi  may  not  mean  '  in  the  direction  of,'  *  toward.* 

For  Cycl.  384  Koppovs  nXareias  eaxdpas  j3aXco»/  eiri  See  p.  56   •     In  Eur. 

Suppl.  272  yovvdTcov  gocs  of  course  with  dvrlaaov,  and  in  Trach. 
1275  the  reading  is  uncertain.  This  is  the  sum  of  the  exclusions. 
For  iirl  c.  gen.  denoting  proximity  there  are  no  examples. 


4. — Comedy. 

a)     Aristophayies, 

€Tri  c,  Dat,  —  Superposition. 

KVTos  BcopaKO?  Pax   1 235  d(Kdpv(a. 


avdeai  Eq.  ^OJ.^ 

yoiaa-i  Thesm.  II 82.      [X.  6] 

xXdSfo-i  Av.  2j8. 

Koirms  Vesp.  IO4O. 

Kopv(f>als  Nub.  270.     [Hm.] 
KpoK(>>T(2  Ran.  46. 


\vxv€i(o  Frg.  5^/. 

/ijJXotf  /.  e.  breasts  Eccl.  poj. 

6(t)da\fxw  Lys.  1026.     Ran.  1247 


neTpais  Eq.  783.     [2.  3.  Ar.] 
^Italic  figures  denote  lyric,  black  figures  anapaestic  passages. 


23 


t 


4 


nXevpah  Vesp.  1 293.      [PL] 
TrpoKoyoKTi  Ran.  1 246. 

(T^fxa  Thesm.  886  e0'  f     [Hd.] 
rpaTTtCn  Ach.  7/55.     [4.  Hd.] 

vypa  Vesp.  678. 

xelXcai  Ran.  d/p.     [Cf.  Hd.  and 

Th.  ;^ciX<off  rdcfypov] 


X€ipi  Frg.  387,  10.     [2.  Hd.] 

Taivdpa  Ach.  5IO. 
dXX^Xoiai  Pax  901.     [PL] 

epavTCO  Ran.  9  ax^oi  .  .  .  <^epo>i/. 
oU  Plut.  185  iTnKa6e^r)TaL. 

(TOL  Ran.  1040  \iKd6r)To. 


iirl  c.  Dat*  =  Proximity, 


dvanavXais  Ran.   195* 

^(i>po7s   Lys.    1 140  iKiTTjs  Kade^ero. 

[l.  2.  3.  X.  6] 
drifxaaloia-i  Eccl.  027« 

8pv(f)dKToi9  Vesp.  552, 

dCpais     Eccl.    865.      997.       1 1 14. 

Ran.  163.     Nub.  46^.     Vesp. 

362.  1482  Bd(r(T€i.     [Hd.  6] 
Krjpois  Vesp.  754. 
KiyKXidi  Vesp.  124. 

Kovpeioiari  Plut.  33^* 


oiKiaiai  Vesp.  801. 

TTvXais  Eq.  1246.  1247.  1398. 
poalai  Thesm.  864. 

arop-ari  Eccl.  I IO7  rrjs  ia^oXrjs* 

TpaneCr]  Pax  770.     [Hm.  4.  Hd.] 
Tvpi^co  Ran.  1 139. 

'AprapiTLca  LyS.  12^1. 

Arjvaico    Ach.   504   (Sobolewski, 
on), 

UaXXadla  Frg.  585. 


Sobolewski  is  sure  that  en  iaxdpais  Av.  1232  means  at,  not  o?t, 
I  prefer  to  class  it  here,  as  doubtful ;  also  e.  KWTrm?  Eq.  546,  as 
lacking  satisfactory  analogies.  fV'  6x6a  Ran.  1172  belongs  to 
Aesch.,  see  tragedy  supra.  Examples  such  as  Pax  123  KoXXvpav 
fxeydXrjv  Ka\  k6v8vXop  oyj/ov  eV  avrrj  are  not  usually  reckoned  as  purely 
local.     See  Append.  A,  i. 


fTTi  c.  Ge7i,  = 
aKfirjs  Plut.  256  (iamb,  tetram.). 

d/xd^iy?  Plut.  101^  6xoufiepr}v.   [Th.] 

dv6pdK(op  Frg.  68.  135. 
apfiaros    Eq.   968.      Ran.    1403 
(from  Aesch.). 

dpp.ap,a^a)v  Ach.  70* 

da-mB(ov  Ran.  928  ewovras  (iamb, 
tetram.).     [i.  3] 

^^fjLaros  Plut.  382. 

^(OfjLos  Pax  938  e<^'  oTov,     Cf.  Eq. 

131 2   TTt  Ta>v  aep-pcov  Oecov  (trOCh. 

tetram.).     [i.  2.  3.  Th.] 


Superposition. 

y?}s  Pax  896.     [i.  3.  X.  PL] 
diKwp  (as  Kpadcop)  Av.  41* 

eXnis  (as  a  ship)  Eq.  1244  ec^'  rjs 
oxovfieda,  Frg.  I50>  II  f«  Xenrav 
eX.  c^x^^o^B  • 

Lnrrcop  Lys.  6yg.     [Aesch.] 

Kapddpov  Pax  81. 
KeXrjTcop  Lys.  60. 
K€(f)aX?js     Eccl.     222.        Av.    487. 

515.   Plut.  1 198.  [Hd.X.PL] 
KXivrjs  Lys.  575.  732.     Eccl.  909. 
[PL] 


24 


Koprifiaros  Frg«  474' 
Kpadav  Av.  ^O. 
Kpefxddpas  Nub.  2 1 8. 

Xldos  Vesp.  332  e>'  o^.     [Hm.] 
Xo0G)i/  Av.  293  (troch.  tetram.). 
[X.] 

Xvxvidiov  Frg.  281. 
peXias  Av.  7^^. 

/x»7ptW  (as  /Soj/Lxo)!/)  Thesm.  693. 
j-eo)?  Ran.  52.     [Hm.  3. 4.  X.  PI.] 
$v\ov  Nub.  1 43 1  (iamb,  tetram.). 
Vesp.  90. 

oXiyov  LyS.  31  ftx^TO.     Cr.  ayKupay. 

3p^,.Ach.82.    [Hm.  Hd.X.  PL] 

irarraXov  Vesp.  8o8.      [3] 

TTcpiBpopov  balcony  Frg.  133. 

TreVpaff    Eq.    754.    956.      Av.    836 

[i.  2.  3.  An] 


-cuy. 


TXivaKo^    Plut.    996    erroi/ra.        [Cf. 

TTlVaKlCTKOlS   4] 

TrpoorooTTouNub.  II76.     [1.2.4.  PI.] 
TTvyiSt'coj/  Ach.  638  UKpOiV. 
pinos  Pax  699  TrXe'oi. 
(TKrjTrTp(ov  Av.  510.      [3.  Hd.] 
arpovOov  Lys.  723. 

Wyouff   Vesp.   68.      Nub.    1502. 

Frg.//.     Lys.  389  rey^i'.  395. 
Toj/ou  Lys.  923. 
TpajT^Crji  Eq.  771.     [4.    Cf.  6  and 

PI.  =  dank'] 
Tpoxov  Lys.  846.    Pax  452.    Plut. 

875. 

TvpoKPqaridos  Lys.  23 1. 

epaKTjs  Lys.  103.   Av.  1369.    Pax 
283.     Ach.  602.     Vesp.  288. 


Eq.  1 31 2  Kadrjadai  ....€.  twv  a€pvQ)i>  Becov  lias  been  admitted  in 
the  above  list,  s.  v.  ^<op6s;  see  also  Th.  I  126,  11  and  Eur.  Heracl. 
238.^  Eccl.  496  e.  aKias  cXBovcTa,  besides  lacking  concreteness,  is 
doubtful  in  reading,  Von  Velsen  preferring  vno  aKids  and  Sobo- 
lewski  following  him. 

Genitives  of  proximity  seem  entirely  wanting. 

b)     Comic  Fragments. 


iixl  c.  Dat,  =  Superposition. 

np^axri     Ephip.     5,     16    (Kock's 

Com.  Frgs.  H). 
dfivXots  Pherecr.  108, 17  (I).   Pol- 
lux reading  -coi/.      Telecleid. 
32  (I)  -CO. 


€<aro/x/3oi  Antiph.  164  (H)  TovTois 

vavai  Hermipp.  63, 1 1  (I)  hexam. 

[i.  2.  3.  Ar.  Hd.  Th.  X.] 
6Ba  (yiypcoff)  Menand.  671  (HI). 


^In  such  phrases  as  elg  [ek,  h)  didacKaAov,  Uvdlov,  yelTovoq,  the  explanation 
by  ellipse  seems  now  to  be  losing  favor.  Vogrinz,for  instance,  Hm.  Gram., 
p.  314,  takes  eiq  [kq)  directly  with  'At'dao,  ^AdrrnaijjQ,  yaloijv,  etc.,  where  the 
gen,  he  says  expresses  "  etwas  der  Person  Zugehoriges,  ihr  Anhaftendes." 
See,  too,  Schmalz,  Lat.  Gram.,  §113,  Richard  Meister,  Die  griechischen 
Dialekte  II,  p.  297  ff.  In  the  present  case  therefore  (f.  i^ti-iv  the  prep, 
according  to  this  theory  goes  immediately  with  the  gen.     Rather  than  that. 


t 


• 


% 


; 


25 


nivaKia-Koig  Pherecr.  io8,  14  (I). 

Pollux  reading  -av.     [Cf.  mpa- 

Kos  Ar.] 
Trpoo-coTTO)  Eubul.  98,  7  (II).    [Hs. 

4.  6] 
<Tav8dXia  Cephisod.  4  (I)  e<^'  oh 


.  .  eneoTiv, 


TpaneCrj    Phil  em.  17    (II)    Kilp€vov. 

Telecleid.  I,  7  (I)  -ai^.     [Hm. 
4.  Hd.] 

;^€tX6cri  Eupol.  94,  5  (I)  e7r€/ca^t^€i'. 

r^ae  (sc.   0)0)?)    Cratin.   108  (Ij 

>  /     V  J 

iiroiQovfX  . 


eVi  c,  Dat  ==  Proximity. 

TTjyavois  Pherecr.  127  (I). 


2dypa  Alexis  ,^05  (II). 


6vpat9  Eubul.  53  (II).     [Hd.  6] 

XaxdpoLs  vegetable- market  Cvditin. 

49(1)- 
nopveioiai  Xenarch.  4,  4  (II). 

Proximity  is  perhaps  also  in  Hermipp.  53  (I)  &pa  fiaTrup  e.  vols 
Upols.  Menand.  1091  (III)  seems  corrupt.  With  Theopomp.  64 
(I)  KaTaK€ip€voi  fxaXaKcoTQT  €.  TpiKXivi(o  may  be  compared  Eur.  Phoen. 
1533  ^'  8oi>pa(Ti. 

im  c.  Gen.  =  Superposition. 


apa^a>v     Menand.     396      (III). 

Adesp.  497  -T]9.     [Th.] 
dvOpaKias  Cratin.  143  (I)  hexam. 

(Porson's  emend.). 
dvOpaKtov  Ophel.  I  (I). 
^ijfiaros  Menand.  1121  (III). 
y?is  Adesp.  352.     [i.  3.  X.  PL] 
a/(^pou  Menand.  877  (III).  [Hm.] 
fOTias  Adesp.  463.     [6] 
Kiopoiv  Crates  15  (I). 
Koirpov  Menand.  544,  5  (III). 

Koxcopap    Crat.    27    (I)    ras    rpixas 
Kadeifiepai. 

KpapLov  Cratin.  7 1  (I).  [Cf.  Kpdp€t  3] 

KpoTd(j)(OP  Plat.  84  (I)  aKpa>p.    [Hm. 

Hs.  Batr.] 


pa6{]paT09  Amphis.  3  (II)  ia-TrjKcas, 

as  on  a  ship. 
^vXov  Alex.  222,  10  (II).     Her- 
mipp. 9  (I)  ovnl  Ta>v  ^vXcdP  (prob. 

not  here  official.  See  Append. 
A,  2). 
Trpoaoyrrov  Anaxandr.  58  (II).    [2. 

4.  P1.3 

T€LxtQ)p  Eupol.  207  (I).      [rci;(ft  I. 

Th.  X.  6] 

rrjydpov  Eubul.  76  (II).      [4] 
rpdneCa   Alex.    26 1,    3  (II)   €(f)'  ?$• 
eVe'Acar'.      [4.  (6.  PL)] 

Tpoxov  Theophil.  7  (II). 
opaKTjs  Adesp.  12 19. 


I  should  prefer  the  elliptic  theory,  or  better  yet,  say  that  deuv,  didaoKaXov, 
etc.,  were  new  indeclinable  substantives  (in  the  gen.  with  £/c,  dat.  with  £v, 
ace.  with  flf),  the  neuter  subst.  6L6acKa}^,ov,  etc.,  presenting  a  notion  as  dis- 
tinct from  that  called  up  by  di^daKokoq  as  e.  g.  cashmere  the  stuff  is  distinct 
from  Cashmere. 


26 

eni  c.  Gen.  =  Proximiiy, 
^aTvi\i  Adesp.  719,  from  Photius.     [Hm.  X.] 

Menand.  202  (III)  L  rov  o-anSiov  is  problematic,  Epinic.  i,   i 
(III)  is  corrupt,  but  has  been  emended  by  Cobet,  Mnemos,  IV 

322,  who  reads  €7ra\(f)iTovTa  for  eV'  aX^iVov  nipovra, 

5. — History. 

a)     Herodohis. 
em  c.  Dat  =  SuperposUion, 


27 


5k/)6)  4,  195.  7,  85.     [X.] 

aKpcoTrfpioi  (rov  opfoi)  7  j  2 1 7  ^y^vovTo. 

[Th.]' 

avx'^vi.{Tov  Boa-TTopov)  4,  1 1 8.  [Cf.  3] 
/Sd^po)  2,  176.     [Hd.  6.  PI.] 
/3cD/x(p  4,  35.     [i.  2.  Hd.  X.  6] 

hopauL  7,  4^' 

rjlJLlirXipSioV  I,  5^  ^''  TOfTOKTl  .  .  . 
idpVTO. 

Kav€(o  I,  119* 

K€(j)a\rj  5,  12  (cf.  gen.  in  same 
cap.).  Plur.  in  5,  49.  7,  70, 
72,74,75,76,79,84.  [4.  Hd. 
X.  PL] 

fXfToonat  3>  28. 

erri  c.  DaU  =  Proximity, 


oiKTjpaTa  2,   148  €K€ipoi(ri.      |_^'  ^J 

olKodoprjfxaTi  2,   121   ^. 

op€(ri  2,  12.       [3.  4.  Hd.  X.] 

ovficp  (^yfjpaos)  3'  ^4* 

TTupt  9,  120. 

TTvpa/jLides  2,  1 49  (ip^^fiOTepTjai.      L-^'J 

TTup-yo)  I,  181  (2)  €7n^€^r]K€.     [1.3] 

p/o)  4,  85. 

(rKr)irTp<o  I,  1 95  cTTfcrrt. 

TpiTToa-i  5,  59. 

x^p?7  5>  77-     [2.  3] 


[Ar.] 


repatdrep  9,   IO5. 
Tairapo)  I,  24. 


dia(r(f)dyt  3>  117  'TiiXa?  .  .  .  tarrjcrf. 
BaXaaarf  2,   I59  (2).    3,   I7.    4,  I3, 

172.  6,  20,  118.  7,  89.     [Hd. 

PL] 
^vpT^frt  3,  16.     [Hd.  6] 
fp'7»'^  9»  51  f'^r'  .7-     [Hs.] 

Xovrpd  7)  17^  ai/ToZat. 

TToXt    6,    7    V^(T09   .    .    .    KfipeVTJ.         [3] 

-norapLCd  I,  189.  2,  IO3,  I08.  4,  18, 
86,  124.  5,  13,  52  (3  w  €7ra(7i, 
avTW,   ^),  119.    7,  124,  154.    9, 

16.     See  also  list  of  proper 
names.     [X.  6] 


TrpoTTvXa  2,  9^^  avrotcrt. 

TTvXrjai  I,  89. 

o-rdpart  2,   1 54.    4,  5 1,  53»  ^I'  ^7' 

*ApT€iJiL(Ti(o   7,  183.     8,    21    (2),  42 

(2),  43.  45,  46  (2),  66,  76.   9, 
98. 

'Ao-6)7rw  9,  19,  30,  38,  43. 

QfpiJicodopTi  4,  110.  9)  43* 
larpo)  4>  80. 

AaKaiva  X^PV  7)  235  *'""    "^T/   ^W^^ 

iiriKiiixipr]. 
Ar]fxp(o  7»  6  j'tJo'oi  €iriK€ifji€pai, 


i 


Ai^Crj  4,   153  i/ijo-off,   156,  195. 

UcXoTTOPPrjaat  3>  59  *'^<^o*'« 

2Kapdp8pat  5>  65. 

2Kid6(o  8,  92. 

Srpvpoj't  7,  25,  75.    8,  118. 


2ovpi(o  6,  87* 
TpcoTTio)  7)  153  vriaov, 
'Ymipi  4,  53. 
QA(.€ai/c3  4*  8. 


In  8,  no  €.  rd)  TrXoto)  and  123  e.  Tw  3a)/xw  it  is  doubtful  whether  ini 
means  on  or  at;  in  5,  121  rrjp  e.  MvXdaoia-i  6d6p  it  means  fo. 


im  c.  Gen.  =  Superposition, 

dyKvp€CL>p  6,  12  €x^(TK€.  7,  iSS copfxeop. 
dyopfjs  5,  89. 

aypSyp  I,  1 7,   1 20  -ov.    6,  23. 
aKfjLTJs  (^^vpov)  6,   II. 


dfid^r)9  I,  31'     9,  80  -eooi/.      [Th.] 
apfxaros  J,  40,  ICO.      [3] 

da-TTiBos  9,  74.     [Hm.  3] 
^dOpcop  7,  23.     [Hd.] 

^afj-ov  I,  183  (2,  ^i;eii/  and  Karayi- 
Covai).  2,  39  €7r'  avrov  o-0d^ou(ri. 
6,  81  ^u€t»/,   97  (dviiirja^.      [Hd. 

Th.] 

y€(f)vpe(op  7,  54. 

doKTvXcOl/  6,   63. 

8€\(f)2po9  I,  23,  24  enewp, 
S€p8p€a)P  2,  32  eneopTos*      [2] 
^cvyetop  I,  199*    4»  46. 
^tdi/oy  2,   113.    7>  44* 
iKpicop  5>  16. 

tTTTTOi;  2,  162.  3>  86  -(OP.  4>  ^4  ■^^'5 
no   TovTCdP,    116   -coi/.      5»    ^12. 

9,  44.     [Aesch.] 

i(rrov  mast  8,  122,      [l] 
KaTaarpaypaTOs  8,  1 18  eVcdirwi',  119' 
K€(f)a\ijs  2,  35  -e'coj/.    5,  12  (dat.  in 

same  cap.).     [Hd.  X.  PI.] 
kUptjs  I,  182.     [PL] 
Kpd(f)ov  I,  92. 
Ko\(CPOV  7>  44*      [^s.] 
Kprjppov  4,  103.      [2.  Th.] 
/cpyordXXov  4)  28. 


KvpaToay-qs  9>   lOO. 

Xd^ow  2,  124  (2),  127.      [X.] 

prixapPjs  2,   125. 

/liao-ToO  3,  133.     [Hm.] 

red?,  -wi/  5,  33  (2),  36  eninXeopras, 
6,  15  €7n^aT€vopTas,  43  fVt^dy. 
In  7,  96,  181,  184  €7rf ^drcvop. 
8,  92  tV  ?ff,  118  eViiSdy.  [l.  3. 
4.  X.  PL] 

PQ>Tov  2,  68.    3,  28.     [3.  Hs.  PL] 

^v\a  I,    186  (TT    lop.    4 J  64  -<*>P,   103 

-ou. 
oj'cov  2,   12Iy    iTTiOetvai, 
6(f)ios  9>  ^I  fVeoTcd)?. 

dpeW  7,  1 1 1.     [Hm.  Hd.  X.  PL] 

noir)  I,  132  TavTTjs  €$rjK€. 
nXoloiP  I,  205. 
npcoprfs  7>   180. 

TTvp^ff  I,  86.   7,  167.     [6.  PL] 

pd;(tos'  (rov  6p€os)  3»  54  fVcdi/Trt. 

ar]Kov  4)  62. 

(TTjfxaTos  I,  93  at/o).    [Hm.  &  Ep.  4] 

fTTavpwp  5»   16. 

OTi^ddos  4»  7^* 

(TTOLXOV    2,    125. 

avp^oXrjs  (of  ^woTjyp)  4>   ^O  (iKpijt. 
Td(f)ov  5>  47  l^pvadpfpoi.      [3*  6J 

Td(f)pov  4,  201.     [Hm.  Th.  X.] 

rpdne^a  6,  1 29  avrrjs  oipxriO-aro.     [4» 

Cf.  6.  7] 

vdcop  3>  23  avrov  eirinXeeip.  [Batr.  2] 


28 


VTTlOpfTJS   9>    19* 

X^tXeos    (jroTa^ov)    2,   70*     4»    14^* 
[Hm.      Cf.  2.  4] 

X«pos  2,  141.     [Hm.  4] 

i/xo)!/  I,  209  (2).   2,  35.     [Hm.  3] 


epTjiKT]s  6,  33. 

X^pcroprjaov  6,  39. 

TratSes-  2,  107  fKiivoiv  iiri^aivovras. 


em  c.  Gen.  =  Proximity. 

y<0PiT)s  I,  51.    8,  122.  BdaTTopos  4,  87  avrov. 

6a\da(Trjs   3,    5.      [Hd.  Th.  X.    6. 

PL] 

Bvp€a>p  3,  120.     5,  92  y.      [l.  2.  4. 
Hd.  X.  6.  PI.] 

fV  oiKTjfjLQTos  2,  121  €,  126  wouM  sccm  to  belong  here,  yet  his- 
torical knowledge  on  the  matter  might  give  the  phrase,  at  least 
for  some  early  period,  its  literal  meaning.  See  Append.  A,  6.  In 
koXttov  top  e.  Uoaidrjiov  J,  115  the  prep,  is  toward.     For  the  official 

gen.  rovi  e.  rouro)*/  enecrTecoTas  4,  84  see  Append.  A,  2. 

b)      TJmcydides. 
enl  c.  Dat.  =  Superpositioji. 


at-ytaXoIf  I  7?   I*       [^O 

a/cpatff  Vn  34,  2.    Vni   106,  4  -a. 

[Hm.] 

dpa^ri  IV  67,  3.       [l.  4.  Hd.  X.] 
^(Ofxos   VI    3,   I    e^'  CO    6vovai.      [l. 

2.  3«  4*  Hd.  X.  6.      Cl.  roup  OeoiP 

I   126,   11] 

iV^/i«  I  56,  2.     [Th.] 

Kpr]ppoh  VI  97,  5  uKpois.      [Hd.] 

vavai  IV  10,  4.     [l.  2.  3.  Ar.  Hd. 
Th.  X.  6] 

eVi  ^.  Dat.  =  Proximity. 


r6t>t  VIII  69,  I.     [Th.  X. 

T€l)(l(i>P   4] 


Cf. 


Airriy  III  1 16,  I. 
'EninoXals  VI  97,  4.     I02,  I. 
AevKippT]  I  30,  I.    47,  2. 
'Pt'o)  II  84,  4.     V  52,  2. 
dXX^Xoiai    II    52,    2.      VII    85,    I. 
87,2.      [PI.] 


eaXuaarjl  ^S,2.  II  9,  4.  IV  26, 
2.  54,1.  57,  I.  VI  2, 6.  VII 
4,  2.      [Hd.  PL] 

Xi/xf'crt  III  6,  2.     IV  54,  4  Xt/zeVt. 

noXixP'O  VII  4,  6. 

•noTap(^  I  100,  I.      Ill  99.      IV  50, 


I.  78,  3,  5-  102,  I.      VI  65,  I. 

VII    35,    I,    2.    78,  3   alT(^.    80, 

5,  6.    84,  2  auT«.      [X.  6] 
OTopaTi    I    29,    3.    55,  I.      IV   49. 

75,  2.     102,  4.      VIII  90,  4. 
ra^po)  III  24,  2.      [Hd,] 


29 


X(opiov   VII    34,    2    6(^'    eS    copfxovp. 

[Th.] 

At'ytVjy  I  105,  2. 
Apre/uttrio)  III  54 »  4' 
Ad(rKa>pi  VI  66,  2. 
At/X/o)  IV  101,5.      V14,  I.     15,2. 
*Ep€Tpia  VIII  60,  I. 
KcKpvffiaXeia  I  IO5,  I. 
KepdvXlcp  V  6,  3,  5. 
Kprjpais  III  106,  3. 


AaiSaaXo)  VI  97,  5. 

AaKtopiKfj  IV  54,  4  prjaov  cniKeip.fprji. 

Aa  VIII  91,  2. 

A/o-^o)  III  16,  I. 

AevKififiJ)  I  51,  4. 

Ao/cpoiff  II  32  prj(Tos.      Ill  89,  3. 

MiX^ro)  VIII  26,  2. 

UvXio  IV  14,  5.     28,  3. 

2/cta)»//?  IV  131,  3.     133,  4  alr^. 

2Tpvp6pi  I  98,  I. 

TpOTTlO)   VIII    35,   3. 


In  four  passages  it  may  be  doubted  whether  superpos.  or 
proxim.  be  meant,  viz.  'AktIco  I  30,  3.  AevKcpfxr]  I  30,  4.  v^aco  IV 
55,  I.  'ETTiTroXatff  VII  45,  I.  Two  instances  are  excluded  because 
lacking  concreteness,  viz.  IV  105,  2  e.  rols  eavrov  pep^p.    VIII  86,  3 

e.  Tols   cr(f)€T€pois   avTa>p  pepeip.      For   the   official   e.    pavalp   of  II    8o,  2 

see  Append.  A,  2. 

cTTi  r.  6^<?;2.  ■=  Superpositio7i. 

dyKvpap  VII  59,  2.  gi^Xa  VI  lOI,  3  avroJi/. 

aKpcoTrjpiop  II  93,  4  avrov.      [Hd.]       TrXot'ov  VI  61,  7.    88,  9. 


7^  (z/^/  x^pa)  IV  1 18,  4  6.  T^y  avTap 
p€P€ip.      [l.  3.  X.  PI.] 

ladpov  I  13,  5.      [Th.  X.] 

Karaa-Tpcopdrcop  I  49,  I,  3  -oy.  VII 
62,   I.     67,  2. 

Xo0wv  III  97,  2.  105,  I  -ov.  IV 
42,  2  avrov.  128,2.  129,  4-0V. 
131,  I  -ov.      V  7,  4   -ov.      [X.] 

/xerecopov  IV  36,  2.    V  6,  3. 

♦'ovff  II  23,  2  avrca*'.  56,  2  -£»'.  57, 
I,  -cjp.  92,  3  -OS.  Ill  8,  I  -Off. 
102,  4  -wi/.  115,  5  -«i/.  IV 
lOI,  3  -a>p.  VI  37,  I  -SiP.  91, 
4  -a>p.  VII  25,  I  avrwv.  71,5 
-S>p.      VIII  74,  I  avTTJs.      [l.  3. 

4.  Th.  X.  Pi.] 

p<i>Tov  IV  4,  2.       [Hs.  3.  PI  ] 
^;7pov  I  109,  4. 


poTT^ff  V  103,  2. 

(TX€8iSiP  VI  2,  4.      [X.] 

rfi;(ovff    IV    32,    2.      IOC,    4   avToii. 

V  7,  5.     VII  28,  2.     [ Th.  6] 

;^eiXovs  (r^?  rdi^pov)  III  23.  2,  4. 
Xa>pioiP   III  97,  2.       IV  102,  2  60' 

o^;.     [Th.] 

'ETrtTroXaJv  VII  43,  4. 

QP«W  I  56,  2.    57,  5.    59,  I.    60, 

3.   68,  4.     II  9,  4.    29,  4,  5. 

58,  I.  67,  4.  79,  T.  95,  I,  2. 
IV  7,  3.  78,  I.  79,  2.  82.  102, 
I.  104,  4.  122,  2.  V  2,  I.  12, 
I.     21,  I.     26,  2.     30,  2.     31,  6. 

35.  3.  5-   67,  I.   80,  2.   83,  4. 

VI  7,  3.    10,  4.     VIII  64,  2. 


For  I  1 26,  II  KadeCopipovs  .  .  .  .  e.  tS>p  atppap  Bfcop  See  supra  p.  24. 


30 

eVt  c.  Gen.  —  Proximity. 

<f)vXaKTr}pLov  IV  no,  2.  AaKcaviKrjs  V  34,  2  KUfx^vop. 

c)     Xenophon. 
ini  c.  Dat.  =  Superposition. 


31 


aXyiak^    Hell.  II    4»    ^    KaT^arrjaav, 

[X.] 

oKpq  Hell.  I  6,  26  MaXea.  De 
Venat.  4,  8  -aiy  rpixas  opdas  (SC. 
Kvv€s  f;^ovo-t).      [l] 

a/cpw  An.  Ill  4,  49.    IV  5,  I  «0' 

w.    V  2,  16 -oiy.    VII  3,  44-049. 

Hell.  V  4,  14.     De  Venat.  10, 

2  -otff  (^^.  CLKpokivioif).       [3] 
aKpoipia  De  Re  Eq.  6,  7  KaraTiOiTOi. 

yrj  De  Venat.  12,  6.  [i.  2.  3.  4. 
*  Th.  X.  6.  Pi.] 
yovaai  Cyr.  VII  3,  5.     [X.  6] 

1(t6p^  Hell.  V  2,  15.  [Th.] 

Kaphia  An.  II  5,  23. 

«0aX^^  An.  II  5,23.   V4,i3.  VII 

4,  4  -ah.     [4.  Hd.  X.  PL] 
KXipa^i  Hell.  VII  2,  8.     [3.  X.] 

KprjTTis  An.  Ill  4,  10  TavTTj,  eVwKO- 
boprjTO.       [3.   PI* J 

Xo'^o,  An.  VI  3,  22.  Hell.  VI  2, 
7.  4,  4.  VII  4,  26.  [4.  Hd. 
Th.  X.] 

vaiTii  An.  VI  5,  22  ye(f}vpa  ^v. 


V€vpa7s  An.  V  2,  12  emQ^^Xrjadai. 
vrjt   Hell.    IV    3,  12.      [l.  2.  3.  4. 

Hd.  Th.  X.  6] 

6BS  An.  IV  I,  20.    2,  6  €0'  7/,  7. 
6,  26.     Cyr.  V  3,  52. 

oiKiais  An.  IV  4,  2  €7ri]<Tav. 

6p€(Ti  Hell.  VI  5»  18  (TvXXeyo/xei'OVff. 

Ages.  2,  4  -et.     [3.  4.  Hd.  X.] 
6(j)pv(n  Koi  Tats  ovpals  De  Venat.  4, 8 
oVaty  An.  IV  3.  3.     [X.] 
TTvpyos  Cyr.  VI  I,  54  avTw,   [1.3] 

arrjXrj  Cyr.  VII  3,  16  imyfypd<^6ai, 

ax^Blats  An.  II  4,  28.     [Hm.  Th. 
PL] 

TfixiO-l      An.      I      4,     4      €(f)€(TTl)K((raP. 

[reixiayv  4] 
(f)p€aTLa  Hell.   Ill    I,  7  €iria-Tr](T€v. 
Xioiiari  HelL  II  3,  46.      [3] 
vyjrrjXoTaTOi    (rc5)    De  Vect.    4,    44. 

[X.]   ' 

'Op,i<o  HelL  VI  5,  51. 
rpao?  oT/)^€i  Hell.  V  4,  50. 

avrS  An.  I  8,  27  iKiivTo. 


eVt  ^.  /?«/.  =  Proximity. 


dp8pa>pi  Con  v.   I,  13  ards. 

dpKvai  Cyr.  II  4,  25. 
apx^t'ots-  Cyr.  VII  7,  85. 
^uo-iXci'ot?  Cyr.  VII  5,  26. 

v(f)dKTots  Hell.  II  3,  50  €7ri(TTrjpai. 

3»  55- 


OaXdrrrj   An.    I    4,  I,   6.      V   3,    2. 
5,2.      VI  4, 4  (2).      VII  I,  28. 

2,  36,  38.  3.  16.  6,43.  Cyr. 
VII  4,  9.  HelL  I  4,  3.  IV  8, 
26.    [Hd.  PL] 


I 


^upaif  An.  I  9,  3.  II  4,  4.  5,  31 
(2).  Ill  I,  2.  VI  5,  23.  VII 
3,  16.  Cyr.  I  3,  2.  VI  I,  I. 
VIII  I,  33.  34-  6,  10.  8,  13. 
HelL  III  I,  28.     [Hd.  6] 

KpiiPri  An.  I  2,  13  i(f)   rj.      [Hs.] 

Xi/im  Hell.  II   I,  23.     VI  2,  7 

e(t)(!i)pp.€i. 
vdirrj  Hell.  V  4,  44  iyiypovTO. 
i/arrci  An.  VI  5,  12  tyeVoi/ro. 

TTijyals  An.  I  2,  8.     [Hm.] 
iroTap(o  An.  I  3,  20.     Cyr.  VII  5, 

II.     [X.  6] 
TTvkais  An.  I  4,  5.    VII  I,  17. 


(TKriPals  Cyr.  IV  2,  32.    VII  5,  6 

iy€POPTO. 
a-Topari  An.  Ill  4,  43  rov  nXaKriov. 
Cyr.    11    4,    25    -crt    ro)»'    TTo/jcov. 

Hell.    HI    I,    23   (TTpaT€VfiaTOS. 

Td(f3p<o  An.  I  7,  19.     [Hd.] 
(l)dTPT}  Cyr.  Ill  3,  27  -my.     De 
Re  Eq.  5,  i.     [4] 

Xapddpa  An.  Ill  4,  I  e'cfi'^.    IV  2,  3. 

Aj;X/<»  Mem.  Ill  5,  4. 
Ka8pL€la  Hell.  VI  5,  46. 
AevKTpto  Hell.  VI  5,  24. 
avTols  Hell.  V  4,  59. 


eVt  c.  Gen.  =  Superposition, 


dypov  Hell.  II  4,  27.    VI  2,  6  -wi/. 

mVaXoO  An.  VI  4,  I.     [Th.  X.] 

tiKpuiv  An.  I  2,  21.  IV  6,  18.    V 

2,  I.   4,  26  -ou.  Cyr.  Ill  2,  4 

-ov.   VIII  7, 3.  HelL  IV 6,  II 

aKpordTov.    VII  2,  II -ou.     [Hd. 

X.] 

dp.a^(iiP   An.  I  7,  20.     II  2,  14  -r\s. 

Cyr.  VII  3,  I.     [Th.] 

dpa^oXrjs  An.  V  2,  5. 

dpoiyecdp  An.  V  4,  29. 

dpparos  An.  I  2,  1 6.    7,  20.      Cyr. 

in  3^  43-   VI  I,  50.   VIII  3, 

13.     [3] 

apfiafjLd^jjs    An.    I    2,    1 6.      2,    1 8. 

HelL  III  I,  13. 
drrniboip  Hell.  IV  4,  lO.     [Hm.  3] 
^&)/x«j/  Mem.  I  I,  2.     ApoL  11. 

[i.  2.  3.  4.  Hd.  Th.] 
y?j9  An.  Ill  2, 19.     Cyr.  IV  5,  54 

KaTairlirTOpTis:.    V  2,  1 5.     VII  5, 

12.  De  Venat.  5,  8  eavr?is.   5, 

13.  6,  25  eaur^f.      [1.3.  X.  PL] 
y^Xocjios  An.  I  10,  12  f0'  ou.    Ill 


4,  28  -ov,  44  -ov.     Hell.  VII  5, 

24   -(OPj   KQTi(TTr](r€P. 

yopdT(jdp  Conv.  9,  4  cKaOeCiTo.    [1.4. 
X.  6] 

8i(f)6€pa  An.  I  5,  10  Toi^TG)//. 
St<^pov  De  Re  Eq.  7,  5.     [i] 
doparos  Cyr.  VII  I,  4. 
eo-;k'dpa$-  Cyr.  VIII  3,  12.    [l.2.  3] 

€vpa>p  Cyr.  VIII  8,  19.     [2] 
e(f)i7nriov  De  Re  Eq.  7,  5. 

dpopov     Cyr.    VI     I,    6    (KaOeC^ro. 

HelL  I  5,  3  e0'  ov.     Conv.  9,  3 

^Kad(^€TO.         [l] 

Imrapioip  Cyr.  I  4,   1 9. 

,  -oai/  An.  Ill  2,  19.  4,  47, 
49.  VII  3,  26  o5.  4,  4.  Cyr. 
I  3.3-  4.7.25.  Ill  3,27.  IV 
I,  II.  3,  14.  20.  5,49,  54,  58. 
6,  I  (2).  V  2,  I,  17.  VIII  3. 
15.  8,  19.  HelL  V  2,  29.  VI 
4,  II.  Ages.  2,  25.  De  Re 
Eq.  7.  5-  8,  10.  9,  9.  II,  8. 
12,  I.  Mag.  Eq.  6,  5.  8,  13. 
[Aesch.] 


LTTTTOV 


32 


KdfxrjXoi  Cyr.  VI  2,  1 8  Iv.    VII,  I 
48  avrav. 

Kovadpov  Ages.  8,  7. 

K.aTaaTpa>fxaTOS  Hell.  I  4»   1 8. 

KfcpaXrjs  An.  IV  3,  6.     Cyr.  Ill 

3,    66    TJjff    Ta(j)pov.      Cf.    ;^€tXcoff 
Td(f)pov.      [Hd.  X.  PI.] 

KXipaKos  An.  IV  5,  25.     [X.] 

KOpv(f)^s  An.  IV  2,  20  eyevovTo.    [2] 

Xi^o?  De  Re  Eq.  4,  4  roiV©*/.   [i] 
\6<f)ov  An.  IV  2, 13.  VI  3, 1 1, 12. 
5,28.     Cyr.  VII  3,  5.     [X.] 

pivr]paT(x)v  Hell,  in  2,  I4.      [6.  PL] 

vauiv  Hell.  Vn  4,  32. 

v€Q>v  An.  I  4,  3.     Hell.  I  6,  35 

avrw*/.     7,    32    -wy.       IV    8,    21. 

[I.  3.  4.  Th.  X.  PI.] 

VTJaoiv  Hell.  V  T,  2  TTot  d(f)iyp€i/os. 

^€vi]s  De  Rep.  Lac.  14,  4. 
oiKr)paTOi  Cyr.  VI  1,53-0)1/.    Hell. 
IV  5,  6.     [Hd.] 

dp((op  An.  IV    I,  II.    3,  7  -toy.    7, 
21  -eoff,  iyivovro.   8,  9  -eoy.    VII 

4,  II  -eof.     [i.  Hd.  X.  PL] 
oxnpaTos  An.  in  2, 19.     Hell.  Ill 

4,  19  -a>v.      Ages.   I,  28  -oav. 

SxOm  An.  IV  3,  5  Ip.     [i.  2.  X. 

Cf.  5;t^oy  3] 


ttcXtt;?  An.  I  10,  12. 

TTTjXoV    OeC.     19,    14   aVO)   KaTa0€L7]S. 

TTvpafiis  An.  HI  4,  9Tai;ri79.    [Hd.] 
•nvpyoiu   Cyr.  VII    I,    39    dva^Tjvau 

[X.] 

paTrra  Hell.  IV  I,  30  l>v. 

a-Ti^ddo^  Cyr.  V  2,  15. 

ramdcov  Cyr.  VI H  8,  1 6  Tideaaiv. 

T€ix(ov  An.  VI  2,  8.     Cyr.  V  2,  2. 

HelL  IV  4,  12.   vn  2,8.    [i. 

Th.  6] 
Ttv^ovs  Hell.  I  7)  II' 
Tpii)p(op  An.  VI  2,  14.     Hell.  V 

4,  56 -oti/.     VI  4,    18  Wf. 
rpo;^off  Conv.  7,  2  ov.     7>  3  'OV. 

iyj^riXov  Hell.  IV  5,  4.     De  Re 

Eq.  12,  II.     [X.] 
xiopos  An.  IV  5,  19. 

w/uoTrXarat  De  Venat.  5,  30  avTav. 

epaKTjs  An.  VII  6,  25.     Hell.  I  3, 
17.    II  2,  5.   V  2,  12,  24. 

NoTiov  HelL  I  5)  l4-Tpd7raiov  aTtj(Tus. 
avTUiV  (^SC.  a  rj  yrj  (fyvei)    De  Venat. 

5,  8  KaraKXipovTai. 

€T€pov  (sc.  dpBpos)  Cyr.  VII  5,  8 


fVi  c.  Gen,  =  Proximity. 

TTorapoi  An.  II  5,  18  Z>p,   IV  3,  28.     Hell.  VII  4,  29.     [i.  Hd.  Th. 
X.  6] 

6. — Oratory. 


eVt  c.  Dat.  =  Superposition. 

drvxqp-CKTi  Din.  I,  29  iinyeypanpfpop. 
yopaai  Lys.  1 8,  lO KaTe6r)KiP.  [X.  6] 
ypappariiop  Dem.  45,  18  w,  ycypd- 


I. 

(Xnidi    [Dem.]    17    IjKOPjja-ap   .   .   . 
$vpovs» 


€TTiypdp.paTL  Isae.  5,  38. 
earlais  Dem.  Frg.  17.     [3.  4] 
icrxaria    Dem.   42,  5   opos  tireuTip. 

Cf.  §§9,  26,  28  ^pf'ctfff  e.  T7   i(TX- 

[Cf.  I.  PL] 
B^piKiois  Hyper.  4,  6  oiKodofMovai. 


33 


t 


pPr]p.aTl      Dem.      44,      30     €Cf)€(TTr]K€P. 

Alcid.    Odys.    24    imypdpfiaTa. 

[X.  PL] 

p€P€avi€vp.€Pois  (jois)  Dem.  21,  1 8 
iirWriKiP. 

o5w  (yijpcos^  Lyc.  40.  Hyper,  i ,  20. 
opiois  Tov  ^lov  {i.  €.  grave-stones) 
Lyc.  109. 

TTvpa   Aesch.    I,    146    (wff   (^jyoriv  6 

TTOLTJTrjs).         [3.    Hd.] 
Td(f)a>       Dem.       44>        I^       €(f)€(TTT}K€P. 

[Hd.  6] 

rfi;^eo-i  LyC.  47.      [Th.  X.  reiXLcap 

4] 


(f)idXais    Dem.    22,    73    -yeypaTTTat, 

gen.  in  same  §.    24,  181.     [6] 

\l/Tj(f)i(Tpa    Aesch.    2,    68    w    eVrye- 

ypOTTTO. 

*Epp?is  statue  of  H,  Aesch.  3, 184 

eVtyeypaTTTo. 
*H5uXeia)  Dem.  19,  148. 
yvvx)   Aesch.    I,    183  e0'  7  5»/  dXw 

ddpapri    LyS.    I,    30  /:ioi;^6i'   XajScai/. 

Dem.  23,  55.      Cf.  also   59, 
§§41,  65,  67,  72,  85,  86. 


eV  dorms'  is  found  in  an  oracle  supposed  to  be  quoted  by  Aesch. 
3,  112  and  inserted  in  the  text  from  Pausanias.  Isoc.  17,  42 
6X*cdSa  c(^'  fj  ;^pj5/^a7-'  ^v  eyo)  dedcoKODs^  is  of  coursc  graphic  (sce  p.  8), 
but  if  admitted  to  the  list  would  make  it  difficult  to  exclude  many 
other  instances  only  slightly  less  so.  Dem.  58,  55  tovs  e.  rois 
puKpols  nXoiois  and  many  similar  phrases,  as  also  Din.  i,  62  6  e.  tw 
opvypaTL  and  the  like,  are  official,  for  which  see  Append.  A,  2.  eVt 
ddnapri  seems  to  be  an  old  legal  phrase,  and  though  perhaps 
weakened  in  the  classical  period,  must  have  been  literal  originally. 

em  c.  Dat.  =  Proximity. 


diKaa-TTj plots  LyS.  30,  3.      IsoC.  1 5, 

38.     Dem.  23,  63.     [6] 

(pyaarr] plots  IsoC.  1 8,  9.      [6] 

BuXaTTrj  Isoc  4,  1 45,  1 63.     Dem. 

6,12.   23,78,155.     [Hd.    Cf. 

PL] 
Bupats  Lys.  3,  27,  29.    12,  16  -a, 

Dem.  10,34.  47>37-a'    [Hd. 

6] 
purpart  Dem.  47,  69.     [X.  6.  PL] 
odok  Aesch.  I,  124. 

TTorap-co  Aesch.  3,  1 83. 
<TTr]Xr)  And.   I,  38  i(f)    rj. 


rd^Q)     Lys.     2,     I     TtapopTiSy     60. 

Hyper.  4,  i.     [Hd.  6] 
rpaiTf^r)  bank  Lys.  9,  5.    Isoc.  17, 
2   -atf,    12,  44,  53  -ats.      Dem. 
19,  114   -ats.     27,  II    (2).     45, 

33-  47>  57.  64.  48,  12.  49, 
17,  42.  52,  24.  [PL  Cf.  I. 
4.  Hd.] 

^Aprepta-la  Dem.  1 8,  2o8.    59,  95. 

Aesch.  2,  75. 
AeX0m6)  Isae.  1 2, 9.   Dem.  23, 74. 


ArjXla  [And.]  4,  13. 

^  Prof.  Gildersleeve  conjectures  deSaveiKojg,  comparing  Dem.  36,  6. 


\ 


I 


34 


35 


Evpinat  Lys.  24,  25. 
EvpvfjLcdovTL  Lyc.  72. 

'HioVi   Dem.    13,    23.     23,    199. 

Aesch.  3,  184. 
GpaavXXcp  Aesch.  I,  loi.    SchoL: 

e.  OpacT.  de  qttikcos   qptI   tov  npos 
TO)  QpaatWov  fivrjixari. 

'Up(^  Dem.  20,  36.     SchoL:  tottos 
KwXiaSi  Dem.  59,  33. 

(TTi  c.  Gen.  = 

ayKvpai  Dem.  1 8,  281  e.  rrjs  avrrjs 
(^SC.  ay.)  oppel.  50,  22  anocra- 
Xfveip.      56)  44  "«*»'>  oppelv. 

aypa>v  IsOC.  7,  52. 

dAcriys-  Ant.  5,  44.      [l.  2.  3] 

darrpdl3r)s  LyS.  24,  II,  12.  Dem. 
21,   133- 

3a^/ja)i/  Lys.  13,  37.     [Hd.] 
QrifxaTos  Ant.  6,  40.     Lys.  10,  15. 

IsOC.    5,    82,    129.     8,    54,    I2I. 

12.  143.  Isae.  5,  25.  Dem. 
6,  30.  7, 1.  12,  2,  19.  14,  41. 
18,  312.    22,  68.    26,  19.   48, 

31.  5"»  4^  ^''  "^^^  diKaarrjpLcov 
Koi  TOV  ^T]p.aTos.      Aesch.   I,  35. 

2,44.   3^167,257.     [Demad.] 

17- 

^(ofiod  And.  I,  112.  Lys.  2,  12 
-(OP.  6,  52  -^p.  13,  52.  Isae. 
Frg-.  65  (=  Teubner  14)  -Syp, 
€Tid€To.     Isoc.  6,  68.     Dem.  7, 

40  eVi'ypa/i/ia.      [l.  2.  3.  4.  Hd. 

Th.] 
yr)s    Isoc.  4,  32.     10,    50   dWorpias 

(SC.    yiji).       Dem.    19,    267    ecf)' 

5sr.      [1.3.x.  PL] 
yopdroap     [Aesch.]     Epist.    4,     3. 

[i.  4.  X.  6] 

8ia$rjKi]S  Dem.  45,  21  eTrrjp. 


Aavpicp  And.  I,  38.* 

IlaXXaSia)  Isoc.  1 8,  52.     Dem.  23, 

71.   47,  70.   59,  9.     Aesch.  2, 

87. 
UaWrjPicp  And.  I,  106. 
upvTap€L<o  Dem.  23,  76. 
2ovpi(p  Lys.  21,  5. 
Tpoia  Dem.  19,  337.      ^ 
*i;XjJ  Lys.  12,  52.    13,  77,  79,  82. 

Aesch.  3,  187. 

Superposition. 

caxdpas  Dem.  59,  1 1 6.     [i.  2.  3] 
Cevyovs  And.  1 ,  45.   Dem.  21,158. 

T]Tr€Lpov    Isoc.    4,    35.     5,   1X2.     12, 
44,   166. 

iTTTTos  Isae.  II,  41  60'  ov.     Dem. 

21,  174  dXXoTpiov.     Aesch.  2, 

III  -ov.     [AeschyL] 
KXlvr)9  And.  I,  61.     [PL] 
Kopprjs  Hyper.  Frg.  100.     Dem. 

21,  72,  147. 
p€(i)s  Lys.  21,  6,  8.     Dem.  17.  27. 

34,  2,  9,   12.    50,  54.    56,  7. 

Aesch.  3,  [52].     [Hm.  3.  4. 

Th.  X.  PL] 
^e'pTjs  Ant.  2,  /3  9  -ia9.     Lys.  12, 

98.      Isoc.   4,    168.     19,    23. 

Lyc.  25,  124.     Dem.  Epist.  3, 

38. 
oiKias  Dem.  31,  3  opovs.     [PL] 
opofxaTcov  Aesch.  3,  253  ttXcIv  as 

on  a  ship. 
npoa-wTTov  Hyper.  Frg.  igSiniOTip. 

[i.  2.  4.  PL] 
(TKTjprjs  stage  Dem.  19,  337. 

Teyovs  Lys.  3»   ^  tfarforaaap. 

rpiTjpovs  Lys.  19,  24.     Dem.  50, 

52  (cf)'  rjs. 

Tpoxov  Ant.  5,  42.     Hyper,  i,  39. 
Dem.  29,  40. 


KjiiaXuiP   Dem.    22,   73  =  24,   181 

yeypafxpepop.      [6] 
^opelov  Din.  I,  36. 
\(opiov  Dem.  31 »  3  opovs* 

^fxcop  Isoc.  19,  39.       [l.  3] 


'Aaias  Isoc.  12,  IO3. 
Evpanrjg  IsOC.  4,  176.    5,  152. 

QpaKT]?  Isoc.  7, 9.  15, 108.  Dem. 
8,  64.  9,  26.  10,  65.  19,  219. 
Aesch.  2,  9.   3,  73. 


eVt  c.  Gen.  =  Proximity. 


diKaa-TTjpiov  IsOC.  1 5,  49  -a>p.     Isae. 

5,  I,  19,  25,  29.  Frg.  4. 
Hyper.  2,  2.  Dem.  29,  16, 
18.  48,  50.  58,  32,  40  -a>p. 
59,  66.     Aesch.  i,  114.     [6] 

fpyaarrjpiap   IsOC.  7,  1 5.      Hyper. 

3.  33  -f>V' 
dvpoip  Lyc.  40.     [i.  2.  4.  Hd.  X. 

6.  PL] 


larpeiov  AeSch.  1,40,  4I,  [50]. 

p,pr]paTos  Isae.  8,  27.     [6.  PL] 
TTOTafxov  Dem.  18,  216.     [i.  Hd. 

Th.  X.  6] 
Tcicj^ov  [Dem.]  60,  30.     [3.  6] 
Topidip  Dem.  23,  68  (ttcis. 

Epp€aKpovpov  Isoc.  1 5,  287  y\rv)(ov- 

(TIV  OiVOP. 


As  doubtful  may  be  reckoned  Dem.  59,  67  eV  ipyacrrripiov  Kadap- 
rat  (see  Append.  A,  6),  Aesch.  i,  74  e.  tow  olKijpdTojp  Kad^^op-ipov^ 
Din.  I,  23  67r'  olKTjpaTos  €(TTr]a€P,  Dem.  34,  37  «.  r^?  (TTodst  Proble- 
matic is  Dem.  19, 156  TdrnT^x^p.  For  official  designations,  as  6  e. 
TOV  opvypnTos,  See  Append.  A,  2. 

7. — Philosophy  (P/ato). 

iiri  c.  Dat.  =  Superposition, 
avx^pi  Symp.  189  e.   Phaed.  89  d,     kodXois  Timae.  76  e  (aKpois). 


[3]  _ 

yevos  Timae.  J^Oto  tSup  dpSpdiTTOiP 
yepos  a'apKoidr]  exoi^  (<p  eavTC^  .  .  . 
K€(f)aXr)P. 

y?l   Phaed.  lll  a  in   avrfj   (Bodl. 

Hermann,  Schanz ;  but  Bek- 
ker,  Stallbaum,  Wagner, 
Wohlrab  read  avTris)»  Minos 
317^.  Epist.  7,  335  3.  [i. 
2.  3.  4.  Th.  X.  6.  PL] 
K€(l)aX^  Symp.  2 1 2  <?.  Rep.  600  d 
■als.     [4.  Hd.  X.  PL] 

kXIpuis   Protag.  ^l^  a  TTapeKddrjVTo. 

[4.  Hd.  6.  PL] 


ppTjpaai  Laws  933  d.     [X.  6] 

pavs  Laches  183  ^60'  ^  enc^dTcvcp. 

[i.  2.  3.  4.  Hd.  Th.  X.  6] 
po)T(o  Phaedr.  247  d.     [Hd.  Th.] 
opeo-t  Phaed.  116^.  [3. 4.  Hd.  X.] 

ov8(^  (yrjpaos)  Rep.  328  e. 

Trpoa-MTTois  Symp.  190  a.  [i.  4. 6] 
TTvpa  Rep.  614  d.  621  d.  [3.  Hd.] 
(TQyfiaTt  Timae.  90  ^  uKpcp. 

aXXo)       ^ 

€Kda-T(p   VParmen.  131  d,  c. 

77  oXXot?   ) 


f 


eaXdrrn  Rep.  404  c.     [Hd.  PL] 
dvpai.^  Symp.  183  a.  203  d.  Laws 

933*.     [Hd.  6] 
oSo)  Hipparch.  229  a. 
oLKia  Symp.  174  d.     [6] 
Tvriyals  Critias  III  d.     [ I ] 
TparreCaLs  banks  Hipp.  Min.  368  b, 

[PL     Cf.  I.  4.  Hd.] 


36 

eVt  c.  Dai.  =  Proximity, 

rpiodois  Laws  933  b. 


'Apre/Lito-to)  Menex  241  a. 
At)\1(o  ApoL  28  e. 
EvpvfjLedovTL  Menex  241  e. 

\rjvai(o  PrOtag.  327  fl^. 


eVt  c.  Gen,  —  Superposition, 


dyp(cv  Laws  637  a, 

dXoyias   Phileb.  l^  a  <T(s>Coip€Ba   as 

on  a  raft. 

cLppdroju  Lys.  208  a  €,  TLVos  T<t>v  apfi, 

Critias  116  e  -os.     [3] 

acnraXddiov  Rep.  6l(>  a, 

^ddpoav  Protag.  315  r.  325  e, 
[Hd.] 

y€(f)vp5)v  Critias  116^  eTncrrrjaatfres* 

yrjs  Symp.  195  e,  Menex  246  d, 
Gorg.  523  e.  Laws  906  b. 
Phaed.  109^  aj/o).  iio^.  114^. 
Timae.  22  c,  d.  43  <?.  44  d, 
59  d,  e  (2).  80  a,  92  a.  Laws 
728  a.     [i.  3.  X.  PL] 

hiK<\)\.vuiv  Critias  116^. 

eXnidos  Laws  699  b  6xovp€Voi. 
ecrxaTLas  LawS  842  e.      [l.  2.  6] 

daXuTTrjs  Phaed.  logc  o?i  surface 

of.     [Cf.  Hd.  Th.  X.  6.  PL] 
tTTTTOJi'  Menon  93  d.     Laws  789  d, 

Symp.  221  a  -ov.     Rep.  467  e. 

Ilfpi  'Aperijff  377  b,  [Aeschylus] 
/c€0aX^$- Symp.  212^.    Rep.  617^ 

'<i>v,     [Hd.  X.  PL] 

KKivuiv     Rep.    372   i/    KaraKfla-dai. 

[PL] 
KoWoiTcov  Rep.  531  b. 
Kopprj?   Gorg.  486  c.    508  d  (2J. 

527  a. 


KpavLodP  Symp.  195  e. 
Kprjnldos  Laws  736  e,     [X.] 
kvkXcov  Rep.  617  ^  (2)  dv(o6€v,  and 

f0    (Kdarov* 

p.aX6aKov  Symp.  195  e. 
fifaov  Parmen.  138^.  d. 

fxrjxavris  CHtOph.  407  U, 

gcviay  CratyL  429  e, 

^VXOV  Rep.   479  C  60'  ov. 

6p(f)aXov  Rep.  427  e  KaBrjfXfvos.    [3] 

oxTjparos  Phaed.  S^d,    113^  tov- 


rav. 


nXfvpds  Rep.  38S  a  quoting  IL 

24,  10.     [4] 
TTobos  Polit.  270  a. 

7rpoiJK€(f)aXaLOv  Rep.  328  C. 

ponds   Locr.   Timae.  97  e.      Cf. 

Th.  V  103,  2. 
(TKfXoli'  Symp.  190^^(2,  o-/cAov?). 
(tkXtjpov  Symp.  195  e, 
apiKpov  Timae.  62  b. 

ari^ddav  Rep.  372^. 

(Tx^dias  Phaed.  85  d.     [X.] 
rpoxov  Euthyd.  294  e. 
xafiaiCrjXov  Phaed.  89  b  (2). 
w/iwr  Rep.  613^.     [i.  3] 

dXXT]Xwv  Theaet.  195  ^.     [i.  3.  4. 
Th.] 


i 


37 

fVi  c.  Gen,  =  Proximity, 
Tparr€(5iv  banks  ApoL  17  c.     [6.  PL     Cf  4.] 

Doubtful  again  is  eV  olKrjpaTos  Kadrjfieva  Charm.  163  ^,  see  Ap- 
pend. A,  6. 

Summary.^ 


Dative. 

Superposition.       Proximity. 


Genitive. 

Superposition.  Proximity. 


Homer, 

Hes.  and  Hy. 

Lyric, 

Tragedy, 

Aristoph. 

Com.  Frgs. 

Herodot. 

Thucyd. 

Xenoph. 

Orators, 

Plato, 


223 
61 
40 

105 

24 

13 

33 

19 
46 

31 

22 

617 


121 
II 
22 

37 

25 

5 
68 

56 

58 

65 

13 

481 


138 
28 

29 

97 

65 
22 

95 
80 

142 

65 
71 

834 


9 

o 

o  (or  I  ?) 

o 

o 

6 
2 

3 

24 
I 

46 


Such  then  is  the  evidence  offered  by  the  remains  of  Greek  litera- 
ture down  to  the  time  of  Aristotle.  Simple  inspection  of  this 
evidence  closes  the  first  point  of  the  inquiry  at  once.  The  dative 
case  with  ini  was  certainly  2ised  in  Attic  speech  to  express  simple 
superposition.  Of  course  exceptions  may  be  taken  to  the  lists, 
many  of  the  rulings  may  seem  arbitrary  in  the  matter  of  admis- 
sions and  exclusions,  many  cases  may  be  explained  away  on  the 
score  of  phraseology  and  quotation,  as  iirX  ddpapn,  cnl  yrjpas  oSw,  and 
others.  But  excluding  these  and  ruling  out  of  the  Attic  court  the 
evidence  of  Thucydides  and  Xenophon,  as  Mr.  Rutherford  does, 
there  still  remain  too  many  datives  to  be  ignored  in  comedy,  in 
the  orators,  and  in  Plato,  free  respectively  from  all  suspicion  of 
parody,  Sicilian  flavor,  and  poetic  flight. 

And  yet  in  comparing  the  words  of  the  Homeric  list  with  the 
lists  of  the  historians,  orators  and  Plato,  we  feel  that  the  atmos- 
phere has  changed.     Objects  are  not  so  concrete,  and,  in  the 

^The  table  shows  the  whole  number  of  instances  given  in  the  lists,  but 
does  not  include  those  words  mentioned  in  the  notes  as  of  doubtful  classi- 
fication, hence  does  not  represent  the  whole  local  usage. 


4 


38 

classic  period,  there  is  a  sort  of  unreality  about  many  of  the 
datives  of  superposition.  Although  their  number  reads  fairly 
high,  we  cannot  help  feeling  that  it  would  not  be  right  to  say  t6v 
nlXov  excop  em  rj  K€(pa\^.  Nor  could  the  Greeks  have  regarded  the 
cases  as  a  matter  of  indifference,  else  their  use  of  the  dative  would 
have  more  nearly  approached  in  number  that  of  the  genitive. 
Their  feeling  may  have  been  a  vague  one— one  perhaps  for  which 
they  could  have  assigned  no  reason.  But  since  an  acquirement 
of  the  feeling  for  these  almost  insensible  distinctions  is  the  ulti- 
mate essential  to  a  complete  appreciation  of  any  language,  and 
since  the  search  for  these  more  delicate  distinctions  is  not  consid- 
ered hopeless,  e.  g.  between  ava  and  Kard,^  between  the  imperf.  and 
aor.,  between  subjunc.  and  optat.,  so  in  the  present  matter  we 
shall  not  lose  hope,  but  take  up  in 

Part  II. 
The  Difference  between  eVi  c.   Gen.  and  eVi  c.  Dat. 

Denoting  Superposition. 

A  brief  examination  of  the  distinctions  set  forth  by  the  authori- 
ties above  quoted  will  suffice  to  show  how  unclear  and  untenable 
they  are. 

Whether  or  not  Kiihner's  distinction  for  Xen.  An.  7,  4,  4  was 
intended  for  general  application  is  not  clear,  as  it  does  not  stand 
at  the  head  of  its  paragraph.  Nor  is  the  remark  itself  clear,  for 
wherein  the  horses  or  Alcibiades'  head  could  exhibit  a  "  Thatig- 
keit "  is  not  obvious.  And  yet  dimly  as  Klihner  has  uttered  it, 
there  may  be  a  grain  of  truth  in  his  words,  for  which  see  p.  46. 

By  no  possible  mental  strain  can  Kriiger's  distinction  be  applied 
even  to  any  single  list,  much  less  carried  through  the  language. 
We  soon  find  that  the  use  of  the  gen.  to  express  **  eine  mehr 
zuf allige  freiere  Verbindung  "  is  itself  zufallig,  while  to  connect 
the  notion  of  "  Zugehorigkeit  "  with  the  dat.  rather  than  with  the 
gen.  is  to  do  violence  to  all  the  ordinary  associations  of  both 
cases.  How  for^instance  can  the  notion  oi  Zugehorigkeit  be  sug- 
gested by  the  dat.  in  ?ri  r\kiov  dvai  e.  roli  6p€(Ti  Phaed.  116  e,  nape- 

KadrjPTO  de  avrcd   i.  rah   ttXtjo-lov   kXivois    Protag.  315    dy  e.  rrj  KecfyaXj}  ^xoiv 

^  For  the^distinction  between  ava  c.  ace.  and  /card  c.  ace.  see  J.  B.  Bury, 
The  Isthmian  Odes  of  Pindar  (1892),  Append.  H,  founded  on  Hermann, 
Opusc,  V  41.     See  Keelhoff  in  Rev.  de  Philologie  for  1892,  p.  157. 


i 


4 


(r 


i» 


39 

ras  raivias  Symp.  212  ^,  eKelvov  jjicp  KaTfOrjKfp  e.  rols  yopaai  rols  Uavaapiov 

Lysias  18,  10,  e.  BeKufiPM  (sc.  3apaKi)  .  .  .  Ka6qiJi€Pos  Av.  Pax   1235? 
Sobolewski  also,  p.  100,  footnote,  of  the  work  cited  above,  says : 
"  ut  7iecessaria  est  coniunctio  rerum  in  Nub.  1176  et  Av.  487,  sic 
fortuita  in  Lys.  1026,  Thesm.  1182,  aliis  multis." 

So  far  is  Kriiger's  notion  from  giving  satisfaction  that  Professor 
Gildersleeve  would  "  expect  the  natural  position  to  be  expressed 
by  eVi  c.  gen.,  the  unnatural  by  the  dat.,"  etc.,  see  p.  6.  This, 
coupled  with  what  he  has  said  elsewhere  (^Pindar,  Introductory 
Essay,  p.  99:  ''eW  is  used  most  frequently  with  the  dat.,  when 
the  superposition  sense  makes  itself  felt  "),  is  the  correct  view,  as 
will  be  shown,  it  is  hoped,  later. 

Mr.  Monro's  distinction  seems  only  to  echo  Kiihner's— '' the 
gen.  usually  with  less  definitely  local  force  than  the  dat."— though 
in  clearer  terms.  Yet  no  reason  is  suggested  why  the  gen.  should 
be  used  to  designate  the  *'  great  divisions  of  space,  etc."  Per- 
haps, however,  this  is  well ;  for  the  rule  goes  no  further  than  the 
.examples.  Why,  for  instance,  should  it  not  apply  as  well  to  aKr^ 
and  6ii  as  to  dypov  ?  And  why  do  not  yair]  and  x^^wr  come  under 
the  rule?  And— which  is  yet  more  difficult— how  reconcile  the 
rule  with  the  fact  stated  in  his  Gram.,  §145,  2,  that  the  locat.  dat. 
though  ''restricted  to  a  comparatively  narrow  range,"  is  also 
especially  used  to  designate  these  same  ''  great  divisions  of  the 
world,  the  chief  spheres  of  action,  etc.,  as  m^epi,  ovpap<o,  ovpeo-i,  aypw, 
atyrnXw,  x^po-« "  ?  Mr.  Monro's  second  category  for  the  gen., 
''  where  the  local  relation  is  a  familiar  one,"  is  identical  with  Pro- 
fessor Gildersleeve's  "  natural  position,"  and  as  stated  above 
points  to  the  truth,  although  many  examples  contravene  it,  as 

emyopaai  (Kpari,  KXiafiolcn,  epopoiai,  dicppa,  dn^prj) ,  ^nd  its  reconcile- 
ment is  not  easy  with  the  first  distinction  of  the  paragraph,  viz. 
that  the  gen.  is  less  definitely  local. 

Giseke's  theory  I  have  reserved  for  the  last,  although  histori- 
cally earlier  than  some  of  the  others.  Presented  originally  in  his 
essay  Die  allmahliche  Entstehung  der  Gesdnge  der  Bias  aus 
Unierschieden  im  Gebrauch  der  Pr'dpositionen  7iachgewiesen, 
Gottingen,  1853,  it  has  appeared  in  a  more  enduring  form  in  the 
article  on  eVt  in  Ebeling's  Homeric  Lexicon,  i^^^.  I  therefore 
give  the  theory  the  space  which  its  prominent  position  clamis. 

Taking  up  the  prep,  inl  (p.  125)  he  says  "  dass  in  eVt  r^a 
^aLP€ip  der  Accus.,  seiner  Natur  nach,  den  Gegenstand  bezeichnet, 
welcher  das  leidende  Ziel  einer  Thatigkeit,  der  Endpunkt  einer 


mjf.. 


t 


40 

Bewegung  ist ;  e.  ptjos  jSat'mi/  hingegen  heisst  '  das  Schiff  betreten,' 
und  der  Gen.  driickt  aus,  dass  derjenige,  welcher  vom  Fesdande 
aufs    Schiff   steigt,   in   einem    andern    Zustand   iibergeht.     Die 
Sprache  fasst  das  Local  Schiff  als  die  Ursache,  welche  diese 
Veranderung  in  dem  Zustande  des  bewegten  Gegenstandes  her- 
vorbringt  und  setzt,  ohne  Rucksicht  auf  die  Richtung  der  Be- 
wegung, den  Gen.  vrjos,  weil  derselbe  andeutet,  dass  von  dem 
Schiff  eine  Wirkung  ausgehe."     Then  quoting  B  351-52  vrjvalv  Iw 
o^KVTTopoLaiv  ^^aipop  I  'Apyeloi  and  translating  the  dative  here  by  "  auf, 
in  Schiffen,"  he  says  :  "  Die  Argeier  und  die  Schiffe  werden  nicht 
als  zwei  getrennte  Gegenstande  angesehen,  von  denen  der  eine 
auf  den  andern  wirkt  (wei,  beim  Accus.  eVl  vria  ^aiveiv,  die  Vorstel- 
lung  '  Schiff'  sich  andert  durch  den  neu  hinzukommenden  beweg- 
ten Gegenstand,  wie,  bei  fVl  prjos  3mVeti/,  der  bewegte  Gegenstand 
durch  das  Schiff  verandert  wird),  sondern  es  werden  beim  Dat. 
beide   Gegenstande    als    zu    einander   gehorig    und   verbunden 
gedacht."     Proceeding  to  examples  he  finds  that  the  gen.  is  used 
in  K  62  eV  oldov  iCoyL^iiBa  (of  the  suppliant  Ulysses  and  his  com- 
panions), 1)  169  eVt  6p6vov  €l<T€  and  other  passages,  ''  weil  das  Local 
auf  den  Zustand  der  Person  wirkend^  gedacht  wird."     ''  Fehlt 
aber  die  Veranderung  des  Zustandes,  od.  soil  auf  dieselbe  kein 
Gewicht  gelegt  werden,  so  steht  der  Dat.,  wie  bei  den  Freiern,  bei 
denen  es  sich  selbst  verstand  dass  sie  nicht  auf  der  Schwelle 
sassen  (p  90  e,  ato-^olo-i  KdeLCov),  od.  von  den  Ruderuden  stets,  z.  B. 
3  419,  eVi  kXijio-i  KclBiCov,  denn  es  versteht  sich  von  selbst  dass  sie 
sich  auf  die  Ruderbanke  setzten,  und  nicht  anderswohin,  wenn 
sie  entschlossen  waren  abzufahren."     After  other  illustrations  he 
concludes  (p.  128)  :  "  Daher  kommt  es  dass  der  Gen.  den  Gegen- 
satz  ausdriicken  kann  dass  etwas  sich  nicht  auf  diesem  sondern 
auf  einem  eindern   Gegenstande   befindet;   cd.  dass   der  Gen. 
den  Ort  mit  besonderm  Gewicht  hervorhebt,  wahrend  beim  Dat. 
das  Gewicht  auf  der  Handlung  liegt  e.  KXia-nolon  KadiCov  imd  eV' 
ov8od  iC^'^ixiOa ;  dass  endlich  der  Gen.  dasjenige  hervorheben  kann 
was  zufallig  und  gleichsam  eine  Ausnahme  ist,  wahrend  der  Dat. 
die  sich  gleichbleibende  Regel  darstellt." 

The  first  point  in  this  conclusion  is  remarkable,  iirl  c.  gen. 
tells  us  that  an  object  is  upon  one  thing  and  so  by  implication  not 
upon  another.  Thus  if  we  are  told  that  a  man  is  in  aypoZ,  the  gen. 
bids  us  remember  that  he  is  not  iv  aorei.     But  does  not  the  same 

^But  surely  the  time  is  past  for  finding  the  causal  notion  in  all  genitives. 


I 


f 


k 


41 

implication  exist  in  the  case  of  the  dat.  ?  If  a  man  be  said  to  be 
e.  vr]iy  we  infer,  with  quite  as  much  certainty  as  in  the  case  of  cV 
iypov,  that  he  is  not  on  land.  Spinoza  discovered  long  ago  in 
constructing  his  idea  of  an  infinite  God  that  any  determination  is 
a  limitation  and  involves  the  negation  of  its  opposite.  Any  desig- 
nation whatever  therefore  of  the  place  discriminates  against  all 
other  places.  It  may  be  noted  how  diverse  the  impressions  are 
concerning  the  gen.,  for  Giseke  denoting  the  accidental  and  ex- 
ceptional  places,  for  Monro  and  Gildersleeve  the  familiar  and 

normal. 

Giseke  then  proceeds  to  cite  and  comment  upon  further  con- 
firmatory passages,  e.  g,  A  485-86  vr^a  plv  oX  -ye  p-eXaivav  iir    Tjnelpoio 

^pvaaap  \  vyj^ov  eVi  ^a^aOoi^,  ''  denn  das  Festlaiid  verandert  den 
Zustand  des  Schiffes,  der  Land  aber  ist  der  Ort  an  dem  es  ruht "; 

* 

P    357    KaTiSrjKCP  I  avdiy    nodcov    TrpondpoidfP,    afiK€\ir)s    eVi    7rr)pr]9,        qUia 

mensa  carebat "  (in  Ebeling's  Lex.),  and  others. 

It  will  be  seen  that  Giseke  firmly  believes  in  the  Causal  Geni- 
tive. It  is  this  belief  which  leads  him  into  such  (as  they  seem  to 
me)  absurd  explanations— perhaps  nowhere  more  absurd  than  on 
r  470  TO  S'  eVi  x^oi/o?  i^exve'  vdcop,  where  Eurycleia  has  recognized 
Ulysses  and  has  upset  the  basin.  He  says  :  "  Wenn  aber  Eury- 
kleia  aus  versehen  die  Badewanne  umstosst  und  das  zum  Baden 
bestimmte  Wasser  verschiittet,  so  ist  der  erste  Gedanke  dass  das 
Wasser  sich  ver'andere  und  hinfort  nicht  mehr  zum  Baden  tauge  ; 
deshalb  heisst  es  eVl  x^oz/d?,  denn  der  Erdboden  macht  in  diesem 
Falle  das  Wasser  zum  Waschen  untauglich,  und  indem  er  es 
somit  in  einen  andern  Zustand  versetzt,  wird  er  als  auf  anderes 
einwirkend  vorgestellt  und  steht  im  Gen."  This  passage,  showing 
the  result  to  which  Giseke's  theory  leads,  is  itself  sufficient  refu- 
tation of  the  theory. 

Without  further  examination  of  opinions  which  all  seem  more 
or  less  vaguely  to  hint  at,  but  never  to  hit  upon,  the  truth,  which 
lies  at  the  basis  of  the  distinction,  the  thesis  of  the  present  disser- 
tation may  be  stated  at  once,  viz. 

The  difference  between  err/  c.  gen.  and  ini  c.  dat.  is  a  graphic 
or  pictorial  difference,  not  a  logical  one;  appealing  to  the  fancy, 
not  to  the  reason.  It  is  a  difference  of  accent  or  of  shading, 
rather  than  of  kind.  Both  give  the  place  upo?i  which,  but  fVi  c. 
gen.  adds  no  separate  item  to  the  picture.  It  melts  into  it  as  a 
subordinate  element,  necessary  at  times,  but  still  subordinate. 
Its  presence  may  be  feh,  its  absence  noted,  but  it  is  a  mere  enclitic 


/ 


42 

in  the  thought.  Whereas  fVi  c.  dat.  emphasizes  the  place  of  the 
object  or  action,  presents  it  not  as  a  background  but  as  a  second 
feature.  Nor  is  the  place  an  indefinite  region,  anywhere  within 
which  the  object  or  action  lies  (for  this  is  expressed  by  the  gen.), 
but  a  definite  point.  There  is  no  fusion  here  between  the  object 
and  its  environment.  The  iota  of  the  original  locative  suffix  -i 
was  as  strongly  deictic  as  the  iota  of  ovrotri,  pointing  to  this  place 
here  or  that  place  there,  and  to  no  other.  In  the  thought-accent 
the  locative  claimed  an   acute,  and  to  this  the  Greek  dat.,  its 

successor,^  fell  heir. 

With  the  difference  thus  based,  we  see  at  once  the  reason  of  the 
facts  noted  by  the  scholars  above  quoted,  as  also  the  degree  of 
truth  which  they  severally  reached.  Why,  for  example,  the  gen. 
to  express  the  famihar  relations,  the  natural  position  ?  Evidently 
because  no  word-painting  is  aimed  at.  In  the  daily  prose  rela- 
tions of  life,  the  Greeks  expressed  plainly  the  necessities  of 
the  case,  as  we  ourselves  do,  reserving  emphatic  expression  for 
poetry  and  passion.  Choosing  the  case  therefore  which  most 
readily  fuses  with  others,  the  one  of  such  general  affinities  as  to 
have  no  obtrusive  individuality  of  its  own,  they  spoke,  e.  g.  of 
going  e<^'  l-niTov  with  no  more  thought  of  the  personality  of  the 
horse  than  we  when  we  speak  of  going  '  on  horseback.'  The 
horse  was  a  mere  vehicle,  the  phrase  well  on  its  way  to  adverbial 

petrification   {cf.  ecpimroi)   and    stood  just   as  would    ^paBecos,  rax^cos 

or  any  other  adverb.      But  compare  this   with  the  manner  in 
which  Xenophon  paints  the  picture  of  the  exciting  moment  (Anab. 

I    8,    l)  when   narrjyvas  .  .  .  7rpo(paiv€Tai   eXavvav   dva   Kpdroi  Idpovvri   to) 

tnTTco.     The  horse  is  no  vehicle  here.      He  stands  out  sharply, 
comitatively,  as  part  of  the  picture. 

Again,  why  is  the  gen.  used  when  two  objects  are  contrasted  ? 
Here  surely  the  dat.  if  more  emphatic  would  be  more  fitting. 
But  it  must  be  rerfiembered  that  not  the  places  of  the  objects  are 
contrasted  but  the  objects  themselves,  designated  more  exactly 
by  mention  of  their  localities.  The  gen.  is  still  adjectival,  as  a 
means  to  an  end.  To  illustrate  from  English— the  merchant  will 
speak  of  his 'New  York  establishment'  or  his  'Paris  establish- 
ment,' but  not  of  his  '  establishment  at  New  York,'  which  by  pre- 
senting New  York  as  a  substantive  rather  than  as  an  adjective 


1  Delbruck,  Synf.  Forsch.  IV  130  :  "  £t/  mit  dem  Dativ  ist  naturlich  nichts 
anderes  als  Wl  mit  dem  Localis.'* 


43 


would  lessen  somewhat  his  establishment.  Again  we  say  :  '  Your 
hat  is  on  the  table,  not  on  the  bed,'  yet  the  table  and  bed,  heavily 
as  we  stress  them,  are  hardly  within  the  conscious  horizon  of  the 
picture.  We  know  that  you  are  seeking  the  hat,  not  them.  Hence 
in  Greek,   with  a  proper  accentuation  of  the  thought,  6  e.  ri)? 

rpaneX^s  (kXi'i/t/j)  ttIXos. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  present  distinction  is  the  exact 
reverse  of  Giseke's.     But  let  us  see  if  it  does  not  better  account 

for  the  facts. 

In  the  first  place,  it  will  be  granted,  I  think,  that  the  distinction 
which  continues  the  same  through  the  language  has  more  in  its 
favor  than  one  which  accounts  for  only  one  period  of  the  language 
or  in  the  course  of  time  exactly  reverses  itself.  Now  by  making 
the  dat.  the  picturesque  and  emphatic  means  of  indicating  locality, 
the  gen.  the  colorless  means,  we  explain  immediately  poetic 
usage^  and  prose  usage  respectively  (see  the  summary  above), 
and  also  establish  a  distinction  which  runs  through  the  language, 
varying  in  degree  perhaps  in  the  different  departments  and 
periods  and  traversed  sometimes  by  the  habits  of  the  language, 
but  still  the  same.  Whereas  Giseke's  theory  is  on  the  horns  of  a 
dilemma.  For,  holding  the  dat.  to  be  the  unemphatic,  the  gen. 
the  emphatic  case,  it  eii/ier  turns  Homer  and  all  succeeding  poets 
into  prose  (Hm.  with  223  datives  against  138  genitives)  and 
makes  the  Athenians  talk  poetry— without  knowing  it  perhaps, 
as  Mons.  Jourdain  talked  prose— ^r  it  must  admit  and  maintain 
that  the  language  reversed  its  usage.  Neither  of  these  positions 
seems  tenable. 

Secondly,  by  distinguishing  the  cases  as  here  proposed,  we 
shall  not  run  counter  to  all  their  other  associations.  For,  as  seen 
above  in  Delbriick's  statement  of  the  theory  of  preps,  (p.  3),  it  is 
after  all  a  question  of  the  cases,  not  of  prepositions.'    Thus  if  we 

1  Tycho  Mommsen,  Entwickehing  einiger  Gesetze  fur  den  Gehrauch  der 
griech,  Prdpositionen,  p.  15  :  "  Das  Vorwalten  des  Dativs  gehort  der  alteren 
und  der  poetischen  Sprache." 

2  If  this  doctrine  were  applied  in  the  school-grammars,  cutting  out  the 
chapter  on  preps,  and  their  illicit  intercourse  with  the  cases,  and  restoring 
the  latter  to  their  proper  categories,  the  student  might  acquire  the  Greek 
feeling  for  the  cases  at  an  earlier  age  than  is  now  usual.  For  example, 
what  a  cloud  of  misunderstanding  rises  from  the  boy's  mind  when  first  he 

feels  that  it  is  the  same  genitive  case  in  aloddvofiai.  tivoc,  fitfiVTjfzai  rivog,  etc., 
as  in  TVTZTOfiaL  vtz6  nvof— the  verb  in  this  last  instance  being  no  more  •  pass- 


I 


44 

change    ovtos   6   rod  rcyovs  '  you    roof-man'^  to   ovto?   ovitI  roO   T€yovs 

(Ar.  Nub.  1502),  instead  of  breaking  up  the  relation  between  the 
two  substantives  we  render  it  closer  by  clarifying  it.  Only  the 
miserable  custom  of  writing  6 — eVl — rov  reyovs  instead  of  6  eViTovre- 
yovs'  has  deceived  us  into  thinking  that  there  were  three  elements 
of  thought  in  the  phrase.  There  are  two  only,  ^m  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  case.  The  gen.  would  be  chosen  at  any  rate.  And 
the  two  elements  run  so  closely  together,  the  one  modifying  the 
other,  as  expressed  in  English  by  the  hyphen  (roof-man),  that 
only  one  image  is  presented,  viz.  the  man-on-the-roof.'^  Again 
we  easily  feel  in  English  the  difference  between  '  I  bought  a  five- 
dollar  hat'  and  '  I  bought  a  hat  for  five  dollars.'  In  the  former 
the  hat  is  the  sole  object  of  vision,  in  the  latter  we  are  balancing 
two.  In  Greek  the  first  instance  would  show  the  gen.,  the  second 
the  dat.  or  eVt  c.  dat.*  For  the  dat.  stands  off.  Whether  person 
or  thing  (pure  dat.  or  locat.  dat.)  it  stands  there,  not  here,  either 
as  an  interested  onlooker  or  as  the  place  toivards  or  in  which. 
But  there  is  hardly  need  of  a  reminder,  much  less  of  exposition, 
to  show  that  all  our  associations  with  the  two  cases  thus  distin- 


ive'  than  in  the  others.  (Why  indeed  should  a  boy  be  required  labori- 
ously to  acquire  this  notion  of  '  passivity,'  when  in  later  years  he  must 
a^rain  dissolve  it  and  find  that  also  even  th^  forms  of  language  expressing 

it  are  fictions?) 

1  Though  Max  MuUer  may  have  been  wrong  in  supposing  that  formally 
the  gen.  was  a  genderless  adjec,  yet  certainly  its  function  and  our  feeling 
for  it  is  adjectival. 

2  See,  however,  Paul,  Principien  d:r  Sprachgeschichte,  p.  278. 

3  We  may  compare  this  ouTri  rov  riyovg  and  the  patronizing  ovtcI  Kpefiadpac 
dvr/p  *your  basket-man'  (Nub.  218)  with  the  picturesque  *  Charon  at  the 
oar  '  ovttI  kukti  ijjvxonofnrog  .  .  .  Xdpcjv  (Eur.  Alces.  361). 

*  If  it  be  objected  that  avrl  c.  gen.  could  also  be  used,  it  must  be  borne  in 
mind  that  avn  is  generally  recognized  as  taking  an  adnominal  gen.,  t.  e.  is 
almost  an  'improper'  prep.  (See  Monro,  Homeric  Gram.,  §226.)  The 
combination  of  a  gen.  with  its  noun  or  verb  in  presentation  of  a  single  idea 
is  sometimes  so  close  that  no  proportioning  of  the  elemental  notions  seems 
possible.  We  cannot  tell  which  is  predominant.  Thus  in  ^daropoq  piv 
the  gen.  is  not  merely  a  modification  of  the  nom.,  for  the  succeeding  con- 
struction is  often  masc,  following  the  gen.  So  when  a  boy  speaks  of  a 
'  whale  of  a  ship '  he  is  not  thinking  especially  of  a  whale,  nor  on  the  other 
hand  of  a  whaling-ship.  Be  the  explanation  of  these  gens,  what  it  may-^ 
and  it  is  certainly  often  wrong,  as  when  Prof.  Jebb  thinks  it  may  be  a  gen. 
of  material  in  Soph.  Ant.  114  Aev/c^f  ;t^<5i;of  7rrcpv>f  arsyavSg—the  fact  remains 
that  the  complex  presents  one  image. 


(I 


45 

» 

guish  them.  Against  Giseke  (who  would  contravene  these  asso- 
ciations) all  that  the  present  thesis  recommends  is  this  :  Drop  the 
preposition  and  let  the  cases  speak  for  themselves. 

Thirdly,  by  thus  making  the  distinction  one  of  imagery  and 
representation  rather  than  of  logical  coherence,  we  free  ourselves 
from  the  necessity  of  predicting  with  the  book  closed  how  an 
author  in  any  given  case  will  prove  to  have  expressed  himself. 
For,  on  a  logical  basis,  things  must  be  so,  and  not  otherwise. 
Hence  the  chains  of  argumentation  which  the  logical  Giseke 
must  throw  about  the  Protean  Homer  to  compel  him  to  take  on 
a  logical  form.  Hence,  too,  the  widespread  opinion  among 
schoolboys,  painfully  drilled  into  seeing  and  explaining  the  logical 
basis  of  the  various  phenomena  of  the  Greek  language,  that  the 
Greeks  were  the  most  illogical  people  in  the  world.  Whereas, 
regarded  as  imagery,  all  is  plain,  for  all  is  subjectivity.  Homer 
in  a  given  case  felt  the  locality  as  a  mere  background  and  used 
his  brush  in  the  gen.  We,  if  the  same  case  be  given  us,  may  feel 
the  need  of  more  color  in  the  scene,  and  prefer  the  dat.  Both  are 
right,  as  subjectivity  justifies  itself. 

But  on  examination  of  the  lists,  subjectivity  will  not  often  be 
called  upon  to  justify  itself.  In  proportion  to  the  whole  number 
of  examples  the  number  will  be  small  where  we  should  expect  a 
different  case-usage,  or  where  recourse  need  be  had  to  a  vaulting 
fancy  before  reaching  the  author's  point  of  view.  Due  allowance 
of  course  must  be  made  for  the  individual.  Xenophon,  for 
example,  may  become  flowery,  as  sometimes  other  soldiers  or 
travellers  (one  may  compare  Stanley's  lectures  and  books  on 
Africa).  But  the  broad  distinction  is  this :  Where  there  is  paint- 
ing in  detail,  where  the  march  of  thought  is  leisurely,  or  where 
on  the  other  hand  there  is  excitement  or  pathos— the  mind  dart- 
ing and  insistent— there  we  expect  the  dat.  Where  there  is  but 
one  image  to  present,  all  else  being  subordinated,  there  we  look 
for  the  gen. 

One  further  point  must  be  disposed  of  before  applying  the  dis- 
tinction to  the  lists.  The  phraseology  and  habits  of  the  language 
cannot  be  ignored.  They  will  at  times,  though  rarely,  seem  to 
traverse  the  rule  that  has  been  proposed.  Yet  on  examination 
they  will  bear  good  evidence  to  its  truth.  The  first  item,  phrase- 
ology, enters  the  question  very  slightly.  eV  dypov  (-wi/),  tor 
example,  runs  through  the  language  (including  Apoll.  Rhod.  and 
Theocr.),  never  with  modifier  and  only  four  times  with  article, 


) 


(^ 


6771  Ta>v  dypoav. 


46 

The  dat.  is  not  used.  The  phrase  is  in  fact  one 
word,  as  much  so  as  eViSe^io?,  though  lacking  declension.  But 
there  are  only  twenty  instances  in  all.  So  a  few  other  fixed 
phrases,  as  fVi  Ovpms  (but  with  exceptions),  eVi  yi]p<os  68^,  tVi  ddnapri, 
eVI  eivi  {hyt^lvh  x^'p^o^'  ^TTft'pov).  But  few  of  them  are  frequent,  and 
most  of  them  emerge  only  in  certain  departments  or  periods. 
Beyond  this,  phraseology  does  not  disturb  the  question.  ^^^cGr, 
y^,  o'posr,  a<T;},  alyiaU,  and  Others  change  with  the  picture  to  be 
presented. 

The  second  item,  the  habits  of  the  language,  may  be  instanced 
by  the  way  in  which  the  notion  of  a  vehicle  upon  which  is  ex- 
pressed, viz.  by  the  gen.  This.  I  think,  is  the  one  grain  of  truth 
which  Kiihner  was  struggling  after  above  (p.  5)  when  he  spoke 
of  the  '  Thatigkeit'  of  the  horses,  although  the  example  to  be 
sure  was  an  unhappy  one.  In  the  above  lists  the  following  words 
occur  literally  or  metaphorically  as  the  names  of  vehicles,  always 
in  the  gen.  except  the  underscored  words,  which  are  sometimes 
dat.,  but  in  that  case  for  the  most  part  not  as  vehicles.    Wagg07is  : 

dn^VT],  cifxa^a.  a^fui,  dpfxdfxa^a,  ^fxloioi  mulc-Car,  (eOyos,  ^os.  ox^ay 
KdvaOpov.  Add  k\Ivt],  (^opfiov,  diTpd^r),  €(f)i7nnov,  K€(f)n\rj.  Ships  :  vai^, 
rpir  -r..  r-\n7nv.  6X/cdff,  86pv,  (Tyc^ta,  di(f)6epa,  t€vxos,  pi\jr,  pomj,  prnpt],  Attis, 
^f?/xa,  aAoyia,  oj/d/xara.  Beusts  of  burdetl  :  tmros,  Inndpiov,  kAi/st, 
7tS>\os,  ovos,  Kdfxr]\os,  arpovdos,  Kdvdapos,  dcXcpis,  Tpo-ms. 

On  examining  the  passages  where  the  underscored  words 
appear  in  the  dat.,  it  will  be  seen  that  in  the  following  cases  at 
least  the  objects  are  not  regarded  as  vehicles  for  the  action 
expressed  by  the  verb.  C  75  ^'o-^^^a  •  •  •  Kar€6i]K€v  .  .  .  eV  dnljvr]. 
Aesch.  Prom.  710  ireddpa-Loi  vaiova-'  eV'  €vkvkKois  oxois  (where  the  sur- 
prising nature  of  the  habitation  requires  the  dat.)  Hm.  Hy. 
5,   19  dpTrd^a?  .  .  .  eVi  xP^^^^'^'''  h^'^^'^   ^^   corrupt;    see   the   list. 

Plat.    Protag.  315    d  TrapcKddrjvro  Se    avra    cm   rals    TrXrjalop    kKlvqls   (a 

Defregger  interior,  where  kXIvt}  is  of  course  not  used  as  a  litter,  as 

in  Andoc.  1,61.  Dem.  17,  20  (rpiTjpeis')  koI  arparriyov  fir  avrais  hd^are 
M€i/e(T^ea— an  official  dat.,  see  App.  A,  2.  Dem.  58,  55  rovs  arparr^yovs 
Ka\   rovs   cVi   roh   fxaKpols   TrXoi'ots— official.      ^  362   60'    irrrrou^   pdanyas 

iUipaV.         O     182     €(^'   tTTTTOUV    fldoTlV    ^dXeV.         Aesch.    Frg.    38     ITTTTOl    8'     60' 

Ittttois  ncrav  tfiiTCCpvptxevoi.     p.  425  iCop^voi  8'  eTTt  roh  (sC.  TpoTTidi  and  torw) 

(f)€p6prjv  oXooh  dvepoKTiP— where  the  caesura  indicates  the  proper 
connection  of  rot?  with  iCopevos.  For  xt^aXj?  see  p.  52.  B  351 
vrjvaiv  cV  il^Kvnopoiaip  Z^uivov  is  a  disputed  reading,  iv  being  preferred 


dl 


47 
by  La  Roche,  Nauck,  Christ,  Faesi,  and  others,     o  388  ^vurolm, 

Td    pd   o-(^'    eVi    vrjvatv    eVetro.      /3  414    ndpra    (j)ipovT€s   evaae^^pcp  itiX   vrjl 
Kdreea-av.      o)    419    rovs    Se  .  .  .  Boijs    eVi    vrjixrl    ti6cvt€s.       Soph.    Phil. 

891   ovTiX  vr)t ,  .  .  TTovos.     Eur.  Iph.  T.  1 109  €771  vavaXv  t^av — where 
the  eVi  is  Elmsley's,  as  the  MSS.  have  ivi  and  iv.     Thuc.  IV  10,  4 

cm  yap   rah   vavaX   pqaroi   claiv   dpvvecrOaL — locality  merely,  Or  at   any 

rate  with  no  notion  of  a  vehicle.     Xen.  Hell.  IV  3,  12  .Vi  r^  prjt 

finxdpcpov  d7roeav€lv—\oC3.\\ty.       Plat.  Laches    183    d  (pais)    e'0'   ,^eVe- 
^dr€vef— official.      Hermipp.    Frg.  63,    1 1     e'^oXccrcicv  pavalp  fVt'— not 

as  a  vehicle. 

In  the  remaining  six  instances  (four  in  poetry,  two  in  prose)  we 
might  expect  the  notion  of  a  vehicle,  but  can  by  no  means  be 
sure  that  such  a  notion  was  intended  to  be  conveyed,  especially 
as  the  notion  of  pure  locality  or  of  instrument  is  quite  as  satis- 
factory. It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the  four  poetical  passages 
came  from  Euripides,  viz.  Phoen.  11 10  at^dyt'  e>^  e(^'  dppart  6  pdpns: 

'Apcfiidpaos,   Troad.    569    Xcva-a-eis    Trjpd'    ' Aphpopdxqp    i^^tKoh    in    S;^^? 

TTopOpcvopiprip — both  passages  highly  picturesque,  the  chariot  being 
the  first   object  to  strike  the  sight,  like   Xenophon's  sweating 

horse      ,  Rhes.  236  ^6idb(cp  d'   Imroip  nor    en    avrvyi  ^alr) — which  may 

be  corrupt,  as  two  MSS.,  followed  by  Paley,  Matthiae  and  others, 
read  ^prvya,  and  yet  may  stand  with  the  other  instances  as  an 
example  of  Euripides'  exaggerated  poetical  style—,  Helen  1135 
pccfycXap  (i.  <?.  Helen)  im  pav(T\p  ayoip—here  clearly  a  case  of  the  dat. 
as  vehicle.     The  only  two  examples  in  prose  are:  Xen.  An.  II 

4,  28  ol  ^dp^apoL   h?iyop  im   axedtais   8t</)^epiVat$-   uprovs,   rvpovs   ktX.  and 

1  hue.  IV  67,  3  aKdriop  dpcprjpiKOP  wff  XrjaTai,  t'/c  ttoXXov  TcBepancvKdrcs  rrjv 

apoi^ip  T^p  TTvXSiP,  cladcaap  em  dfid^r),  ncidoPTes  top  apxoPTo,  did  t^s  rdcfypov 

{lege  Kara  ty]p  rd^pop)  KaraKopl^cip  t^s  pvktos  cm  rrjp  OdXaaaap  Kal  cKjrXch, 

The  fact  that  these  authors  write  exceptional  Attic  would  perhaps 
for  many  be  sufficient  explanation  of  this  syntax.  But  the  in- 
stances are  worth  attention.  Xenophon's  point  was,  not  merely 
that  the  barbarians  got  food  across  the  river,  but  that  they  used  .a 
novel  mode  of  conveyance,  hence  (besides  dicfyecpipais)  the  dat.  of 
instrument,  to  which  eVi  is  almost  adverbial.  The  Thucydidean 
passage  is  still  more  instructive.  The  long  periodic  sentence, 
with  its  circumstantial  detail,  would  almost  compel  the  use  of  the 
dat.  cm  dfid^r}9  preceding  the  verb  at  such  a  distance  would  be 
flat.  Thucydides  may  have  lived  long  away  from  Athens,  may 
have  been  perverse  in  style,  used  archaic  spelling,  poetic  words 
and  harsh  hiatus,  but  here  surely  he  wrote  as  any  cultured  Athe- 
nian would  write,  sensitive  to  thought-accent. 


48 

It  is  clear  therefore  that  this  particular  habit  of  the  language, 
the  expression  of  the  vehicle  by  the  gen.,  was  very  strictly 
observed,  there  being  but  two  exceptions  in  prose  and  three  (or 
four)  in  Eurip.,  all  five  being  easily  accounted  for  by  the  fact 
that  the  object  was  something  more  than  a  vehicle  in  the  picture 
which  the  author  was  presenting. 

Thus  much,  by  way  of  instances,  for  the  phraseology  and 
habits  of  the  language.  We  now  turn  to  the  lists  to  apply  the 
distinction  maintained.  But  as  it  will  be  impossible  within  the 
limits  of  this  essay  to  examine  all  the  examples,  let  us  first  look 
at  those  of  single  instance — the  olavoi  of  the  language — in  the 
hope  that  here  too  their  solitariness  (according  to  the  ancient 
derivation  of  the  word)  may  prove  prophetic.  We  shall  begin 
at  the  end  of  the  lists,  as  Attic  Greek  is  the  special  object  of  the 
search. 

1)  TpaiTiCcov  (=:  banks)* — Plat.  Apol.  l"]  C  Xdyoi)  hi  liVTTfp  ila>6a 
Xe'y€iv  Koi  iv  dyopa   eVl  Ta)u   Tpairc^coVy  iva   vfiojp  TroXXot  aKTjKoaai,  koi  nXXo^i, 

a  solitary  instance  of  em  TpaneCf^v  in  the  sense  of  banks,  for  not 
only  Lys.,  Isoc.  and  Dem.  use  the  dat.,  but  also  Plato  himself, 

Hipp.  Min.  368  d  cos  iyoi  rroW  aov  tJkovov  p,€yaXav)(ovpL€vov,  noWrjv  ao(f)iav 
Kol   ^r]\oiTriv   aavTov   di€^i6vTos  iv   dyopa   eVi  rais  rpane^ais  — .      And   yet 

the  difference  is  clear.  The  former  passage  is  colloquial,  to  be 
sure,  and  circumstantial,  yet  melting  into  one  thought,  uncon- 
scious, making  no  point  of  the  locality.  The  Hippias  passage, 
on  the  contrary,  is  sarcastic,  there  are  pauses  between  the  ciaui^es, 
each  word  tells,  and  a  slight  emphasis  on  the  locality  is  not  with- 
out significance  in  the  case  of  the  money-making  sophist.  In 
Lys.,  Isoc.  and  Dem.  the  dat.  is  of  course  in  place,  as  in  all  busi- 
ness transactions  dates  and  places  must  be  carefully  designated. 

2)  dX\rj\o)v. — Plat.    Theaet.    195   ^    eav    Be    Trpoff    nda-L    tovtois    en 
dWrjXcov  o-v/xTrcTrTW/coTa  17  vno  aT€VO)((i>pias,      Elsewhere   always  €7r    dXXjy- 

Xots,  as  would  be  expected,  the  very  purpose  of  the  word  being 
to  evoke  two  objects,  and  in  the  phrase  cV'  dXXjjXotff  to  set  one 
upon  the  other.  But  just  here  it  is  not  Plato's  purpose  to  call  up 
two  objects,  but  their  mixture.  The  things  are  uypd,  the  context 
tells  us,  and  they  have  melted.  eV  dW^Xois  would  be  positively 
wrong. 

3)  laQjxov. — Thuc.  I  13,  5  oiKovvm  yap  rrjv  noXiv  01  Kopivdioi  eVt  tov 
laOfxov  dft  hi)  TTOTf  eprropiov  iixP^  — •  Thuc.  I  56,  2  vTroTonr)aapT€s  rrjv 
€\Bpav  avToav  {SC.  roiv  KopivBiav)  01  ABi^valoi  IJoTiBauiTas,  01  olKovaiv  eni  t(o 
1(t6(x(o  t^s  UaXXtji/T^s,  KnpivBidiif  uTToiKovSy  iavriov  di  gvufid^ovs   (l)6pov   inon- 


!  I 


49 

Xcr?,  eKeXevop  — .  These  passages  Kuemmell  cites  as  proof  of  the 
indifference  of  the  cases.  To  me  no  two  passages  could  better 
prove  the  difference.  In  13,  5  the  thought-accent  lies  on  del  8^ 
TTore  epndpiop  dxop,  as  is  shown  by  what  follows,  while  the  parti- 
cipial clause  is  wholly  subordinate.  In  56,  2  the  Potidaeans, 
their  locality,  origin,  political  status,  are  circumstantially  pre- 
sented, laOfxa,  has  a  gen.  with  it,  all  points  are  itemized.  In  our 
own  language  we  draw  hundreds  of  just  such  distinctions, 
unaware  of  their  existence  until  some  unlucky  foreigner  fails  to 
observe  them. 

4)  avxep<op.— The  next  case  of  single  instance  is  Aesch.  Pers. 
191,  where  Atossa  is  relating  her  dream.  Xerxes  yokes  the  two 
women 


apfxaaip  5'  vno 
levyvvanp  avToi  Kal  Xerradp'  in   avx^vap 


Ti6r](7i. 


Would  not  the  e'pdpyeia  of  the  dream  be  better  served  here  by  the 
dat.?  Perhaps  so;  only  there  would  then  be  too  much  empyeta. 
The  women  already  fill  the  picture,  with  Xerxes,  the  yoking  and 
the  collar.  Mention  of  the  part  of  the  body  is  incidental,  em- 
phasis upon  it  would  be  ludicrous,  evoking  the  question  :  Where 
else,  pray,  if  not  on  the  neck  ? 

5)  Kprjpdap, — Hes.  Op.  757-8  • 

firjBe  nor    ep  Trpoxorj  noraficop  aXade  Trpopeoprwp, 
firjd    enl  Kprjpdcop  ovpeip. 

Here  eVi  Kprjpdap  must  mean  immediately  over,  just  as  occasionally 
eVt  noTap.ov,  em  6aXda-(Tr]s  are  used,  for  which  see  p.  53. 

6)  rrrjyai — X  1 53  of  the  fountains 


ep6a  d   eir    avrdoip  ttXvpoI  evpees  eyyvs 


eaaip. 


The  fountains  had  been  already  described.  The  nXvpoi  are  now 
taken  up,  the  fountains  serving  as  a  mere  point  of  reference. 
We  too,  we  accent  'near  them,'  not  'near  them:  Compare  this 
with  the  very  different  effect  of  the  datives  in  the  Catalogue, 
where  the  homes  of  the  various  contingents  are  most  carefully 

set   forth,  e.  g.  B  523  o?  re   AiXatop   ^xop,  7rrjyfj9   ^m   Kricj^iaolo.      So   tOO 

the  careful  dat.  in  locating  the  palace  of  the  great  king,  Xen.  An. 

I  2,  S  ep  KeXaipa7s   epvfxpd    em    Ta7s   irr^yals   rov  MapcrCov    Trorafiov  vnb  -nj 

dKpoTToXei,  and  in  marking  the  place  of  the  Kpljpr]  ^jaeW  Zdaros  Kal 


so 

a(f)3ovos  p€OU(Ta  €ir    avrrj  rfi  daXdaa-rj  vno  rrj  iiriKpaTfia  rov  xtopiov  (An.  VI 

4>4). 

This  completes  the  list  of  words  which  depart  in  only  one 

instance  from  the  habits  of  the  language.  Before  proceeding  to 
those  of  greater  variation,  a  second  habit  of  the  language  may 
here  be  stated  once  for  all,  to  which  the  last  example  from 
Homer,  eV'  avrdoiv,  has  led  us,  viz.  the  unemphatic  pronoun  avTov 
decidedly  prefers  the  unemphatic  gen.  case,  there  being  in  post- 
Homeric  Greek  sixteen  instances  of  eV'  avrov  to  five  of  eV'  avra>,  or, 
if  cases  of  superposition  alone  be  reckoned,^  to  only  one  eV'  alrco. 
This  solitary  instance  of  airco  to  denote  superposition  (Xen.  Cyr. 
VI  I,  54)  is  worth  inspection.     Cyrus  builds  a  portable  tower  and 

stations  men  upon  it  Ka\  ttoXv  paov  ijye  TO.  OKTOJ  C^vyr)  Tov  TTvpyov  /cat  tovs 

en  avTu>  (ivdpas  fj  ktX.  The  graphic  eV'  avT<}  is  not  *  upon  it,'  but 
*  perched  on  top  of  it,'  men  and  tower,  two  objects.  The  rule, 
however,  requires  the  gen.,  as  the  figures  16  to  i  certainly  show, 
although  the  unusual  nature  of  the  event  would  at  times  cause  us 

to  expect  the  dat.  So,  e.  g:  Hd.  6,  129  6  'iTrnoKXeidrjs  .  .  .  e/ceXcuo-e 
01  Tiva   rpdne^av  eaevuKai,  ecrcXOova-rjs   de  rrjs  rpaire^rjs   npara  fxiv  in    avrrjs- 

aypxwnro  AaKQiviKci  <TXT]pdTia.  But  altogether  too  Strong  would  be  in 
English  too:  "he  ordered  a  table  to  be  brought  and  when 
brought  danced  upon  zV  (aur^). 

This  habit  of  avrov  (wholly  in  accord  with  the  non-emphatic 
character  of  the  gen.  as  here  claimed)  effectually  dispels  Kuem- 
mell's  difficulty  in  distinguishing  Thuc.  IV  100,  4  cl)X6ya  enoUt 

fieyaXrjv  koI  rjyj/f  roii  reixovs,  oKrre  p-rj^eva  en  avrov  en  peivai  from  VIII 
69)  I    ^cav     A0r]va7oi   ndvres   dei,  ol   p,ev   en\   relxei.,  oi   8    iv  rd^ei,  .  .  .  ecf)* 

onXois,  on  which  he  says  in  despair  "ne  minime  quidem  interesse 
sentio." 

The  same  habit  would  also  seem  to  establish  a  seventeenth 
instance  of  the  gen.,  viz.  en  alrrjs  (sc.  y^?)?  Plat.  Phaed.  iii  a,  as 
Bekker,  Stallbaum,  Wagner,  Wohlrab  have,  rather  than  e'n  avrrj 
as  the  Bodl.  MSS.,  Hermann,  and  Schanz  read.  The  reference  to 
the  preceding  yf)  is  a  wholly  unemphatic  one. 

Returning  to  the  lists  we  next  take  up 

7)  yopdrav, — There  are  only  two  instances  of  enl  yovdrcov.  [Aes- 
chin.]  Epist.  4,  3  describing  the  statue  of  Pindar  np6  r^s  ^aaiXeiov 

OToaff,  Kadrjpevos    evbvpari   Ka\   Xvpa   6   IIiv8apo9,  didSrjpa   €XC3V   kq\   en\   rcov 

^Thuc.  uses  kn'  avrQ  twice,  Herod,  once,  of  proxim.  to  a  river,  Herod. 
£7r'  avTT)  once  of  proxim.  to  an  island. 


' 


SI 

yovdroiv  dveiXiypevov  ^i^Xtov.  Xen.  Conv.  9,  4  enei  ye  prjp  Kareldev  avrr^v 
{sc.    Apiddvrjp)  6  Aiovva-os,  enixopevaas  cocrnep  hv  eX  ns  (piXiKOiirara  eKade^ero 

enl  rcov  yovdroiv.  In  the  former  case  Pindar  has  two  things,  a 
wreath  and  an  open  book,  the  place  of  the  book  being  desig- 
nated incidentally,  but  furnishing  no  third  item  in  Pindar's  make- 
up. Dionysus  in  the  Xenophon  passage  dances  up  to  Ariadne 
and  seats  himself  upon  her  lap — not  a  remote  or  surprising  place 
for  the  lover,  as  the  dat.  would  have  represented  it.  In  the 
instances  of  en\  yovacn  either  the  verbs  more  naturally  take  a  dat., 

as   Kare3r]K€V  (Lysias),  eelvai,  KaOiaaas  (Hm.),  KaeiCopevrj    (Ar.  Thesm. 

1 1 82 — where  it  is  not  for  love,  however,  as  with  Dionysus  and 
Ariadne),  or  there  is  pathos  and  the  etching  is  deep.  X  500 
Andromache   lamenting    Hector   from   the   walls  and  telling  of 

Astyanax,  os  np\v  p.ev  eov  enl  yovvacri  narpos  \  pveXov  olov  edeaKe.  Xen. 
Cyr.  VII  3,  5  rrjv  de  yvvalKa  Xeyovaiv  los  KdOrjrai  x^MQ*  KeKoa-prjKvia  ols 
eix€  rov  livbpa  (her  slain  husband),  rr]v  Ke(paXTjp  avrov  exovcra  enl  rols 
yopaa-i. 

8)  dvpeap,  -wv. — In  place  of  enl  6vpais,  the  regular  phrase  in 
frequent  use  from  Hm.  down,  enl  Bvpeuip  (-S>p)  occurs  three  times : 
Hdt.  3,  120.  5,  92  y.  Lycurg.  contra  Leocr.  40.  I  confess  here 
to  seeing  no  reason  whatever  for  the  departure  from  usage.  In 
the  Herodotean  passages  one  is  almost  led  to  suspect  corruption 
of  the  text,  some  one  of  Herodotus'  late  admirers  substituting  by 
slip  the  phrase  of  his  own  times.  For  that  the  use  of  enl  c.  gen. 
to  denote  proximity  became  more  common — though  never  exten- 
sive—in later  times  is  seen  by  reference  to  Polybius  (see  Krebs, 
Die  Praepos,  bei  Polyb.,  1882)  and  to  the  New  Testament.  Ly- 
curgus'  break  with  the  habitual  phrase  is  the  more  possible,  or 
rather  probable,  as  already  in  his  time  eni  c.  gen.  had  lost  its 
earHer  stability  of  signification  and  showed  various  metaphoric 
uses  and  connections  with  abstracts.  Why  not,  therefore,  also 
in  connection  with  concretes  show  development  ?  Besides,  in  his 
desire  to  increase  the  tensity  of  his  expression  (already  through- 
out quite  tense  enough),  he  may  have  seized  on  the  less  emphatic 
gen.  because  unusual,  and  by  this  contravention  of  the  usual 
attained  the  emphasis  aimed  at.^     Or  can  it  literally  mean  {hpdv 

^This  method  of  obtaining  an  effect  (viz.  by  reversal  of  the  natural 
means)  may  be  seen  in  any  art  which  has  reached  its  full  growth.  In 
modern  music,  for  example,  love  scenes  and  the  andante  movement  of  the 
symphony  are  often  given  fortissimo^  iht  Jinale  on  the  QonUdiTy  pianissimo. 


52 


8    T)v  eVt  fiev  rap   Bvpa>v   yvvai<aii   eXevdepas   n€pi(f)6^ovs    KaT€iTrr])(yias)  that 

the  timid  women  pressed  cowering  upon  the  doors  ? 

9)  K€0aX;}.— In  Plato's  Sympos.  212  e  (too  long  for  quotation) 
stands  first  a  description  of  Alcibiades  standing  at  the  door  rmvias 
exovra  iirX  Trjs  K€(f)aXrjs  irdvv  noWds,  and  within  the  same  paragraph 
he  says  vvv  de  rJKo)  ewl  TT]  K€(f)a\^  c^o)!/  rds  raivlas.  ''Absolutely  no 
difference,"  say  some.  And  yet  see  how  delicately  and  perfectly 
Jowett  has  given  the  difference.  Alcibiades  ''appears  at  the  door 
...  his  head  flowing  with  ribands,"  and  then  says  "I  am  here 
to-day  carrying  on  my  head  these  ribands."  The  change  in  the 
order  of  Greek  words  points  to  just  this  difference  in  thought- 
accent,  raiplas  claiming  attention  in  the  first,  tVi  r^  KfcpaXrj  in  the 
second  passage,  as  Alcibiades  proves  by  his  next  clause,  tva  un6 

TTJs    i^Tji    K€(f)a\TJ9    Trjv    Tov    cro^coraroi'    Koi    xaXXiorou    K€(f)a\riv    dvadrjo-oo. 

Compare  again  the  change  of  cases  and  the  change  of  position, 
effecting  the  same  change  of  thought-accent  as  here,  in  Rep. 

600  a  Kai  enl  ravrrj  rrj  (To<p'La  ovtco  (T(f)6dpa  (piXovvraif  coare  fiopov  ovk  eVt 
rals  K€(f)aXais  Trcpitpepovaip  avrovs  oi  €Taipoi  and  617^  Molpas,  Xcv;^ft/xo- 
pcvcras,  OTip-fxara  enl  tkop  Kfcfiokoiv  (^oixras. 

In    Hut.    5>    12    (TKiva.(TavT€s    TT]P    dd€\(f)€r)p    COS    €2x_0P    apiara,   eV'    vScop 
errfpnop  ayyoi  cVt  777  KecfyaXrj   exovcrap  koi  €K  tov  ^paxlopos  Itttvop  enfXKOvoap 

Koi  KXcadovaap  Xlvop,  while  in  the  last  sentence  of  the  same  chapter 

the  same  woman  appears  cpepovcra  t6  Zdcop  cm  rijs  K€(f)aXf]s  koi  eneXKOvara 
€K  TOV  ^paxiopos  TOP  Ittttop  Koi  (rTpi(j)ovaa  top  uTpaKTOP.      "  Here   again  nO 

difference,"  say  some.  "The  gen.  and  dat.  are  as  undistinguish- 
able  here  in  function  as  in  the  dual  they  are  in  form."  But  the 
true  explanation  is  this :  Herodotus  having  once  painted  the 
picture  in  detail,  has  no  further  need  of  the  itemizing  dat.  Like 
a  good  artist,  he  chooses  for  the  repetition  the  more  summary 
and  incidental  gen.,  at  the  same  time  shifting  it,  as  Plato  did,  into 
the  less  prominent  position  after  the  verb.^  In  his  minutely- 
detailed  account  of  the  dress  of  the  various  tribes  under  Xerxes, 
Herodotus  invariably  uses,  when  describing  their  head-gear,  cVt 
Tjjai  K€(t)aXj(n,  as  might  be  expected  (VII  70,  72,  74,  75,  76,  79,  84), 
the  dat.  preceding  the  verb  in  every  instance  but  once — one  other 

^This  same  lightening  of  the  touch  on  repetition  is  seen  in  Eur.  Hec, 
where  in  v.  698  the  slave-woman  tells  of  the  dead  Polydorus  ctt'  aKtaig  viv 
Kvpu  da/Mffaiaig  full  of  the  horror  of  the  scene,  while  in  v.  778  the  grim 
Hecuba,  still  self-restrained  before  Agamemnon,  responds  to  his  question 
as  to  the  finder  ^6\  kvrvxovaa  Trovriag  aKTr/q  eki.  See  also  Herod.  IH  28  L 
pev  TU)  pETQTru  ,  .  .  £.  de  tov  vutqv. 


i 


. 


S3 

instance  lacking  its  verb.  Xenophon  also  uses  the  dat.  in  describ- 
ing head-gear  (An.  V  4,  13.  VII  4,  4);  further,  in  an  instructive 
instance  of  the  attributive  position,  where  the  attributes  are  them- 
selves contrasted,  and  do  not,  as  is  usually  the  case,  stand  sub- 
ordinate and  in  the  gen.,  viz.  An.  II  5,  23  t^p  ^^p  y6p  .VI  t^  KecpaXj} 

Tiapap  /SaoriXel  fx6p<^  e^ecTTip  dpdfjp  ^x^ip,  rfjp  8'  eVi  rij  Kap8ia  tacos  &p  hp.5>p 
napopTcop  Kol  cTepos  ev-rreTtos  e;^oi. 

lo)  TTOTapov,  eaXdrro-T)s. — Proximity  to  water  is  regularly  expressed 
by  eVt  c.  dat.     But  Xenophon  three  times,  and  Demosthenes  once, 

has  em'TTOTapod,  HerodotUS  once  em  daXdaa-rjs  and  once  eV  avToi  (^sc. 

Boo-TTo'pov).  The  distinction  is  clear.  The  gen.  presents  the  object 
as  immediately  over  the  water,  its  image  reflected  in  and  one  with 
it;  the  dat.  denotes  proximity  merely,  but  the  water  remains  a 
distinct  object.     In  Xenophon's  first  passage  eVl  noTapoC  is  literally 

tlpon,  An.  II  5,  l8   noTapoi)   ecf)'  hp  ^eaTip   ^plp  TapuCeaOai   oTToVots-   &p 

vpayp  i3ovX(ofX€da  pdxeoOai  (J.  <?.  over  the  fords  of  the  rivers).     So  too 

in  the  second.  An.  IV  3,  28  I8^p  8e  aiToi^s  8La^aipoPTa,  ^,pocty5>p  nepylra, 
ayyeXop    AceXeuet    avTov    p-ehai    enl   tov    rroTapLov  prj   8ial3dpT€s— they   were 

therefore  actually  in  or  on  the  river,  not  somewhere  in  the  neigh- 
borhood, as  eVt  rep  TTora/xcp  might  mean.  His  third  gen..  Hell.  VII 
4,  29  cVt  8€  TOV  KXa8dov  noTapov  irapcTd^apTo  niust  mean,  as  in  Hesiod's 
eVl  Kpripda>p,  'on  the  very  brink  of,'  as  the  seat  of  the  Olympian 
games  could  have  offered  only  close  quarters  for  a  battle.     Dem. 

18,  216   8is   T€   (7vp,7rapaTa^dp€Poi   rasr   npwTas,  t^p   t   eVt   ivoTapov    Ka\   t^p 

X€ifi€pip^p  is  of  doubtful  historical  reference  and  must  be  passed 
over  or  else  taken  as  an  instance  of  the  crumbling  of  Greek  idiom 
already  alluded  to.  Of  the  two  Herodotean  passages,  one  shows 
the  pronoun  of  reference  and  is  properly  in  the  gen.  (see  above, 

p.  50),  derjo-dpfpos  8€  Kai  top  Boanopop  crr^Xay  earrjat  8vo  in  avTOv  Xidov 
XevKOv  (IV  87),  while  in  the  other  (III  5)  aVi  TavTrj,  (SC.  Ka8vTws: 
TToXtoff)  Ta  ipTTopta  TO.  eVi  eaXd(T(Tr]s  fxexpi  'irjpvaov  ndXios  eWt  Tod  'Apa^iov, 

Herodotus  is  mapping  out  the  land  and  uses  the  sea  as  an  adjec- 
tive (the  sea-ports).  The  gen.,  consequently,  is  the  only  proper 
case. 

We  turn  next  to  those  cases  in  Aristophanes  which  to  Sobo- 
lewski  prove  the  indifference  of  gen.  and  dat.  He  compares 
Eq.  752  ff: 

6  yap  yepap 
oiKoi  pep  dp8pa>p  eorri  fie^tcoraroy, 
oTap  8    em  TavTTjal  KadrJTai  Trjs  neTpas, 
KexfjP^P  ktX 


'1 

1 


54 


55 


with  Eq.  783  ere  yap  .... 

fVt  Tni(Tl  TTcVpat?   OV   (f)pOVTl^€l   CrK\r]pQ)S   <T€    Ka6rjp€V0V  0VT(09 

ovx  cooTTfp  eyo)  payj/dfjievog  trot  tovtI  (pepto.    aXX'  enavaipci) 
Kara  KaOi^ov  pakaKoas  ktK, 

From  all  that  has  been  said,  the  distinction  here  must  strike 
every  one.  In  the  first  passage  there  is  a  contrast  of  Demos  at 
home  with  Demos  at  the  pnyx.  The  places  are  used  attributively 
(Jhis  Demos  and  that  Demos),  and  in  themselves  are  of  no 
importance.  But  in  the  second  passage  how  pathetic  are  those 
hard  rocks — real  rocks  that  hurt  you  when  you  sit  upon  them, 
not  the  pnyx  rock  of  the  other  occasion  where  men  voted  and 
clamored.  "  I  have  bought  a  cushion  which  I  made  for  you. 
Now  you  can  sit  softly  on  those  hard  rocks."  Evidendy  the 
sausage-seller  makes  the  irirpai  all-prominent.  The  difference 
between  the  two  passages  so  far  from  being  7iil,  is  enormous. 

Sobolewski  again  holds  up  Vesp.  1040  r^nlaXoi  /cat  nvpeTol) 

01  Tovs  narepas  r    r]y)(ov  vvKTcop  kol  tovs  TrdiTTrovs  dneTTviyov, 
KaraKXtPOfxepoi  r    eVt    rals  Kolrais  eVl  Tolaiv  dirpdypocnv  vpwv 
avTKopoaias  koi  Trpoa/cXj^trets'  koI  paprvpias  (tvvckoXXcov  ktX, 

in  comparison  with  Lys.  575  npajTov  ph  fXPV^y  coarrep  noKOP  iv  ^aXapeita 

€KTrXvpapTas  rrju  oIo-ttmttjp,  €k  ttjs  TroXecos  eVi  kXiptjs 
cKpa^di^etp  TOVS  poxOrjpovs  ktX. 

and  Lys.  732 

aXX    rj^oi  Ta)(€(i)S  prj  to)  Oeoj, 
oaop  StaTreraVao"    enl  rrjs  kXiptjs  popop. 

But  the  difference  here  is  no  less  than  before.  Note  the  personi- 
fication and  high  imagery  of  the  first  passage — the  murderous 
'HTTiaXot  and  IlvpeToi  Strangling  old  men  and  scheming  in  the  night- 
watches — a  passage  direct  from  Les  Miser  able  s.  Whereas  in 
Lys.  575  what  object  does  cVi  kXIpj^s  serve  ?  Merely  to  make  plain 
the  metaphor,  nothing  more.  As  for  Lys.  732,  the  woman  does 
well  not  to  emphasize  the  kXIpx)  by  using  the  dat.     See  the  schol. : 

StoTreracraaa  ra  epia,  (Is  to  KaKep(f)aTOP  de  aiPiTTfTai. 

Sobolewski  does  not  study  the  context.  He  fails  to  see  that 
syntax  can  no  more  be  understood  bit  by  bit  than  a  mosaic.  He 
has  not  grasped  the  fact  that  syntax  is,  if  not  the  man,  at  all 

^  Hamaker  reads  ev. 


t 


events,  the  occasion.  Lucian  writing  did  fairly  well  as  an  Atti- 
cist,  but  Lucian  embarrassed  was  shocked  to  find  what  errors  he 
was  capable  of.  Carlyle  when  in  a  passion  went  back  to  his 
mother-Scotch.  The  nerves  of  an  organized  sentence  can  be 
slack  or  tense  just  as  the  muscles  of  the  human  body.  Its  tone  is 
discovered  by  a  careful  diagnosis  of  just  such  symptoms  as  eVi 
TLvos,  iiri  Tivi.  Ignoring  such  symptoms,  we  run  the  risk  of  the 
Greek  becoming  truly  a  dead  language  for  us. 

Without  devoting  further  space  to  particular  instances,  it  may 
be  well  to  inquire  what  relation  this  distinction  bears  to  the  devel- 
oped uses  of  iirl  c.  gen.  and  eVi  c.  dat.  Can  they  be  deduced 
from  it  and  so  bear  witness  to  it,  or  not?  On  even  a  cursory 
glance  it  will  be  seen  that  they  do.  Taking  the  meanings  at  ran- 
dom, first,  of  eVi  c.  dat. :  to  eat  (drink)  one  thing  with  another 
(eVi  Tip()  presents  the  image  of  two  objects,  not  one,  and  the  gen. 
is  impossible  (see  p.  59).  So  in  the  official  phrases  (p.  60) 
where  the  wagons,  camels,  machines,  ships  claim  our  thought 
more  than  the  man  in  charge  of  them,  while  the  official  gen.  on 
the  contrary  sinks  these  things  in  the  personality  of  the  officer. 
ohm  Tov  opvypaTos,  for  example,  was  perhaps  as  concrete  an  indi- 
viduality as  the  modern  Beefeater.  So  the  various  actions  and 
occasions  at  which  one  may  be  present  (eV'  dySxriy  a-vpQoXalois, 
diadrjKTjy  SciTTi/o),  etc.)  So,  temporally,  to  do  one  thing  after 
another,  and  in  the  phrases  enl  Tovra,  eVl  rw  rpiVo)  a-rjpHa,  (popos  enl 
<f)6p(o,  axSos  fV  axOei,  etc.     So  to  post  One  next  to  another  rcfrreii/ 

(KaTaa-Trfaai)   tipcl   iiri  tipi,   tO   follow   On   another    encaBai  em  tipi,  the 
rearguard  ol   €m  Traai.      So  Eur.  Ale.  373  prj  yapup  aXXr^p  Tipd  yvpalK 
€(f)    Tjplp.      So   the    hostile    eVi    in    prjxapdaOai   {r^KTaipfaOai.^   avpoppvpat, 

TUTTeipy  pdxfo-Oai)  im  tipi,  So  the  fVt  of  price,  calling  up  two  objects 
and  their  exchange,  while  the  gen.  subordinates  the  price  to  the 
thing  purchased.  So  the  further  extension  of  eVi  to  denote  con- 
dition, cause,  purpose.  Throughout  the  whole  list  two  objects 
are  presented. 

em  c.  gen.  on  the  contrary  becomes  phraseological,  fuses,  and 
presents  a  composite,  whose  elements  are  not  easy  to  disengage, 
by  themselves  not  making  obvious  sense.  From  the  time  of 
Homer's  evx^aOe  .  .  .  criy^  e(^'  vpelap  (H  195)  *  pray  in  silence  to 
yourselves,'  there  is  something  subjective  about  it,  the  image 
returning  to  itself,  no  second  object  allowed  to  intrude.'     So  in 

^  See  Kruger's  Xen.  An.  V   4,  34  for  the  difference  between  yeXdv  c^' 
iavTov  and  yeXav  e^'  eavT<j. 


56 

the  military  phrases  em  ct>6\ayyos  (Kepc,,  eVoV,  rpidKoura,  6Xiy<op)  rxy,,v, 
Tdrreii/,   yiyveaOaL,  etc.      So   even   in   the   eVt   of  direction    (cVi    2a>ou 

ttX^Iv),  where  the  gen.  is  the  "  characteristic  of  the  motion  "  and 
goes  as  immediately  with  its  verb  as  the  word  west  in  our  phrase 
'to  go  west.'^  In  all  cases  the  gen.  presents  an  object  which 
melts  at  once  into  the  chief  object  of  the  thought  or  serves  as  a 
mark  by  which  it  may  be  recognized.  The  developed  uses  there- 
fore of  .V/  c.  gen.  and  ini  c.  dat.  favor  the  distinction  maintained. 

A  second  support  may  be  found  in  the  behavior  of  the  sister 
preposition  hn6.  Why  does  it  prefer  the  dat.  in  its  local  sense  ? 
(That  it  does  so  may  be  seen  by  reference  to  Appendix  C.) 
Evidently  for  this  reason.  If  one  thing  be  upon  another,  we  see 
it  without  effort,  there  is  nothing  to  call  forth  remark,  and,  on 
ordinary  occasions,  we  would  use  the  gen.  ini  tlpos.  But  the  being 
under  a  thing  does  not  strike  us  as  a  natural  (normal)  position. 
Things  under  other  things  are  apt  to  be  hidden  and  to  be  passed 
over,  as  proved  by  eni  1455  times  against  M  345  times  (not  in- 
cludmg  Plato  entire  or  the  lyric  fragments).  But  if  we  do  see 
things  under  other  things,  their  situation  cannot  but  impress  us. 
And  what  case  can  better  draw  attention  to  locality  than  the 
dative  ?     Hence  vtto  tlvi,  just  as  eV/  nvt,  to  emphasize  the  place. 

A  third  point  in  favor  of  the  theory  that  the  distinction  between 
the  gen.  and  dat.  with  fVi  must  be  based  in  imagery  and  not  in 
logic  is  the  remarkable  difference  of  construction  shown  by  cer- 
tain verbs,  e,  g.  by  ^dW^.v  and  Uvai.  The  latter  prefers  the  gen., 
^oKUiv  and  ini^dWiLv  the  dat.  or  accus.,  never  perhaps  in  all 
classic  Greek  taking  the  gen.     They  are  not  found  with  the  gen. 

1  Definition  of  the  cases  may  as  well  be  abandoned.  If  the  nearest  defi- 
nition  of  the  accus.  is  :  «  eine  Erganzung  oder  nahere  Bestimmung  des 
Verbalbegriffs,"  then  countless  genitives  are  accusatives.  For,  as  s.iid 
above,  the  dispute  as  to  whether  it  is  the  verbal  element  in  a  noun  or  the 
nominal  element  in  a  verb  which  attracts  the  gen.  seems  sheer  logomachy, 
particularly  supererogatory  in  the  case  of  the  Greeks,  who  cudgelled  their 
brains  many  a  century  before  discovering  (or  fancying  they  had  discovered) 
the  difference  between  a  noun  and  a  verb.  Query  :  did  the  Greeks  lack  dis- 
cernment here  or  is  it  we,  warped  by  early  training  into  seeing  distinctions 
where  none  exist?  Yet  at  last  we  may  be  floating  back  to  the  definition- 
less  open  sea  of  the  Greeks.  See  Professor  Gildersleeve,>//«.  Ifopkins 
Un,  Circulars  for  1883,  p.  67  :  "The  adjec.  is  a  ptc.  at  rest,  the  ptc.  is  an 
adjec.  in  motion.  A  similar  difference  is  seen  between  the  abstract  noun 
and  the  infinitive."  But  if  rest  and  motion  are  relative,  then  verb  and 
noun  are  one. 


k 


I 


57 

in  Homer,!  Hesiod,  Pindar,^'  Aeschylus,  Sophocles,  Aristophanes 
Herodotus,  Thucydides,  Xenophon,  Plato,^  or  Theocritus.     All 
editors  are  dissatisfied  with  Sappho  102  ?p'  ?rt  nape^via,  em^dWof^ai, 
and  Eur.  Orest.  51  has  been  rejected  as  an  interpolation,  while 

yovpdrcop  in  Eur.  Suppl.  272  goes  of  course  with  dwlaaop,  and  'eaxdpa^ 

m  Cycl.  384  is  accus.,  thus  leaving  as  the  solitary  example  in 
classic  Greek*  of  ^dXX.Lp  with  the  gen.  Eur.  Suppl.  286  W  kUUl, 

XeVr'   eV   ofMfxdrap   cfydpr}  \  ^aXodaa  t5>p   (t5>v  \  ^   Why   this   difference   of 

construction  in  verbs  of  the  same  signification  ?  Clearly  because 
of  the  mental  image  evoked  by  them.  With  ^aXXo,  our  eyes 
follow  the  missile  to  its  goal,  while  leVat  simply  lets  it  fly.«  UvaL 
therefore  chooses  the  subjective  case,  /3aXXa>  the  objective.  But  if 
verbs  elect  their  construction  by  reference  to  the  imagery  of  the 
cases,  why  may  not  also  prepositions  ? 

It  would  be  an  additional  acceptable  support  to  the  theory  if 
the  use  of  modifiers  and  of  the  definite  article  gave  evidence  for 
it.  For  on  first  thought  we  might  expect  that  the  case  which 
tended  to  phraseological  formations  would  seldom  show  modifi- 
cation, or,  if  any,  that  it  too  would  be  of  the  stereotyped  sort  ; 
also  that  the  article  would  be  more  frequently  lacking  than  with 
the  livelier  dative.  Now,  though  the  figures  do  not  run  counter 
to  this  surmise,  yet  the  difference  between  the  number  of  modified 
genitives  and  modified  datives  is  not  great  (28  per  ce7it  of  the 
genitives  to  ^^ per  cent,  of  the  datives).  And  on  second  thought 
we  could  not  expect  it  to  be  otherwise;  for  stereotyped  phrases 
and  brevity  of  phrase  are  just  as  necessary  when  speaking  of  two 

^Z(i%kvapi^vmi^aXk6tiEvoq\^  the  nearest  approach,  but  the  verb  is  here 
in  the  middle  voice,  the  thrower  is  the  missile, 

2  01.  I  58  Kz<^akaq  jSaXdv  is  '  from  the  head.' 

3 Sisyphus  [Plato]   391    a  does  indeed  show  rbv  n?.eiardKic  ^dnovra  tov 
cKOTTov,  but  Sisyphus  is  not  Plato's. 

*The  following  examples  of  f^dUeiv  c.  gen.  are  quoted  iu  N.  T.  lexicons  : 
l38^X^^ivov,  -nv,  8Kl  Klcvng  Mt.  9,  2,  Mk.  7,  30  (which  hardly  count,  as  (3drA(o 
is  in  the  perfect),  edv  dvdpunoq  f^dkri  tov  onopov  em  rfiq  yrjg  Mk.  4,  26. 
(Sa/iovaa  yap  avrrj  to  fivpov  tovto  im  tov  (j^/xaTdg  uov  Mt.  26,  12. 
^  If  the  gen.  be  allowed  here,  however,  to  the  introspective  and  erratic 
Euripides,  koxdpag  may  be  gen.  in  Supp.  272. 

«See  Schmidt,  Sy^ionymik  der  Griechischen  Sprache  III,  §104,  p.  151  : 
'^^dllELv  unterscheidet  sich  so  von />/7rmv  und  Ikvai,  dass  die  Erreichung  des 
Orts-Objekts  dabei  direkt  ins  Auge  gefasst  wird."  Page  155:  "  Endlich 
ist  auch  hervorzuheben,  dass  mit  Ikvai  nicht  einmal  notwendig  die  Tren- 
nung  von  dem  Subjekte  angegeben  wird.     Od.  6,  231.     II.  19,  383.  22,  316." 


58        • 

objects  as  when  speaking  of  one,  if  not  more  so.  For  example, 
we  speak  of  the  man  eV*  avrot^copo)  (without  the  article)  briefly,  yet 
clearly  see  culprit  and  crime,  while  the  phrase  ovm.  tov  dpvyixaro^ 
(with  the  article)  calls  up  but  one  image— the  hangman's.  Here, 
therefore,  there  is  no  evidence  either  for  or  against  the  distinction 
maintained. 

I  am  well  aware  that  the  principle  oirepraesentatio  here  claimed 
must,  if  true,  be  of  much  greater  extension  than  the  present  essay 
has  set  forth.  A  picturesque  use  of  the  cases  would  hardly  con- 
fine its  exhibition  to  a  connection  with  two  prepositions  (eVt  and 
vn-d).  But  certainly  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  the  two 
cases  to  render  such  a  distinction  improbable.  On  the  contrary 
many  points  have  been  presented  in  its  favor.^  If  repraesentaiio 
has  been  found  so  potent  in  the  moods  of  indirect  discourse,  why 
not  also  in  the  cases  ?  Its  images  may  sometimes  appear  illogi- 
cal, and  logic  be  compelled  to  retire  baffled.  But  if  analogy  is 
admitted  to  have  played  many  pranks  with  logic,  why  may  not 
repraesentatio  do  so  ?  Reason  is  not  yet  dominant  in  language. 
Thanks  to  imagery,  the  sun  still  '  rises.'  Without  absolute  revolt, 
therefore,  from  logic  and  statistics,  we  may  do  well  at  times 
(especially  if  we  have  statistics  with  us)  to  go  back  to  Dionysius 
of  Halicarnassus  and  judge  the  phenomena  of  language  by  aXo-yoy 
aiadrjcTis,  OT  at  any  rate  to  avoid  the  Chary bdis  of  dvala-eqros  Xdyoy. 

^  Other  small  points  maybe  pointed  out,  ^.  ^^  that  vv.  of  action  prefer  Tztpi 
c.  ace,  vv.  of  thought  and  speech  nepl  c.  gen.  For  the  difference  between 
6id  c.  gen.  and  did  c.  ace.  I  quote  Gildersleeve,  Introductory  Essay  to 
Pindar,  p.  98  :  ♦*  With  the  gen.  the  passage  is  already  made,  or  as  good  as 
made.  In  Pyth.  9,  133  TrapOevov  dyev  iTnrevrdv  Nofxdduv  6c^  bfiiTMv^  we  may 
imagine  elbowing,  but  it  may  be  imagination."     But  it  is  more  than  that. 


k 


t 


59 


APPENDICES. 

A. 

Ex c hided  Instances  of  inl. 

A  necessary  complement  to  the  lists  presented  in  this  essay  is 
a  list  of  exclusions,  the  heads  of  which  will  be  here  given.  The 
question  what  to  omit  and  what  to  include  has  been  by  no  means 
always  an  easy  one,  and  the  decision  will  often  perhaps  seem 
arbitrary.  For  while  in  this  special  inquiry  the  guiding  principle 
is  apparently  simple,  viz.  that  of  the  concreteness  of  an  object,  or, 
in  the  case  of  metaphors,  the  vividness  of  the  image  presented, 
yet  just  what  the  vivid  image  is  and  just  what  metaphor  has 
become  so  remote  as  to  be  dead  are  questions  which  can  be  cor- 
rectly answered  only  as  one  approximates  to  Greek  thought  and 
feeling.  Neither  logic  nor  the  analogies  of  our  own  language 
should  be  allowed  to  influence  the  decision.  Yet  I  think  such 
has  been  the  case  in  the  first  of  the  following  heads : 

I.  It  seems  to  be  the  common  opinion  that  in  such  phrases  as 

iaSUiv  irrX  rw  gltco  oy^ov   (Xeu.  Mem.  Ill    I4,  2),  KapBapov  exeiv  eVt  t(o 

aircp  (Cyrop.  I  2,  11),  eVt  c.  dat.  is  not  purely  local  but  means  'in 
addition  to'  or  'with.'  In  deference  to  this  opinion  I  have 
omitted  such  phrases  from  the  lists.  Yet  if  our  own  phrases  had 
been  '  bread  on  meat '  and  '  butter  on  bread  '  instead  of  what  they 
are,  perhaps  the  purely  local  notion  would  have  been  more  readily 
allowed  to  the  Greek.  This  error  of  classifying  the  phenomena 
of  a  language  by  the  translations  made  from  it  into  one's  own  is 
an  old  one,  against  which  Rumpel  raised  a  warning  voice  in  his 
Casuslehre,  p.  80.  The  following  is  a  complete  list  of  such  exclu- 
sions : 


dXi  Ar.  Ach.  835  naUiv  .  .  .  pdhhav. 
dXcpiTOLs   Ar.  Plut.  628   pcpvariXr)' 

pi  VOL. 

dpiSpoaia  PI.  Phaedr.  247  e  in 

aVTT)   VCKTap   €7r6TL<T€V. 

^aXXamo)  Ar.  Eq.  707  (pdyois  .  .  . 


av. 


KoWvpa  Ar.  Pax  123  e^erf  .  .  .  oyJAOp 

€77     aVTTJ, 

\dxava    Aristophon    13,   8    (II) 

nivovaiv  eVt  Tovrois  v8a)p. 

o-iVo)  Xen.  Cyrop.  I  2, 1 1  Kdpbapov 


.  .  .  txoifnv,    VI  2,  27  7riv€iv  vbatp, 

Mem.  Ill  14,  2  ia-eiovGi  .  .  . 

Taplxd  Ar.  Ach.  967   X6(l)ov£  Kpa- 
daivera.      Ar.    Frg.    63O  yeXcora 

Karedopai.       Chiondes    6    (I) 

KOTTTerOV  (.'*). 
rplyXr]   Antiph.  26,  II  (II)  /careo- 
6Ui  yovi'  enl  pia  ttjv  overlap, 

\l^oip(o  Xen.  Mem.  Ill  14,  5  oyJACdp 

yevfxrOat.. 


6o 

In  this  connection  Homer  frequently  has  the  adverbial  eVi  8e 
thereupon,  therewith,  and  Blaydes  has  made  a  collection  of 
passages  on  Ar.  Plut.  1005,  where  ^7:,M^,v  also  takes  the  dative. 

2.  Another  wide  use  of  eV/  c.  dat.  is  to  designate  the  things  or 
persons,  over  which  one  has  been  appointed  officer,  overseer,  or 
the  like ;  also  the  post  at  which  one  is  stationed.  Here  the  local 
meaning  does  not  suffice  or  has  altogether  disappeared.  Atten- 
tion has  been  already  called  to  some  of  the  earlier  instances,  as 
e.g.  Homer's  eVt  /3ouo-i.  The  following  is  of  course  not  a  complete 
list: 

KaraXiTt^lv  riva  (fyvXaKas  em  —  Xen.  Cyrop.  IV  5,  15.  eVl  raJ  rrvpi 
Anab.  IV  2,  14.  eVl  rols  vTro^vyiW  Kai  oxwaat  Cyrop.  V  3,  34. 
eVt  rah  vavcri  Hellen.  I  5,  II. 

ai  pel  a  em   em  rols  Traicri  (ecjitj^ois,  reXfiW  dvdpdai)  Cyrop.  I  2,  5. 

TdTTeiu    eVt  rpLifjpeai   Dem.    17,    20.      em   rah    TLpaypiai^   Isoc'  5,    I17. 

em  rfi  Koipjj  cfivXaK^  Dem.  17,  15.     See  also  Dein.  i,  112.   Dem. 
60,  22.   Aesch.  2,  73. 
ecf)e(TTdvai  em  —  Isoc.  3,  48,  and  many  other  verbs. 

Also  with  the  article  6  (ot)  ^m  rah  fxrjxavah  Xen.  Cyrop.  VI  3,  27. 

eVt  rah  KaprjXo,^^  Cyrop.  VI  3,  33.      ^m   rol,   AXot.   dpfjiacn    Cyrop.  VI 

3,  36.      €m  rw  opvypari   Dein.  I,  62.      roh  npdypaai   Dem.  8,  76.    9,  2 
oures.      em  rots  ^epoi9  .  .  .  eyevero  Dein.  I,  74. 

Here  must  be  catalogued,  and  not  elsewhere,  such  instances  as 

the  following:    d\\\  el  /3o^X«,  ^eV  eVi  ra5  arpareCf^arc   Xen.  Anab.  Ill 

4,  41-      rovff   (TTpaTTjyovs   Ka\  Toi;^  em   roh  puKpoh   ttXo/ois-   Dem.   58,  55. 
nap^aap  ai  .  .  .  vPj^s  ...  /cat  eV*  alrals   vavap^os  UvOaydpas  Xen.  Anab.  I 

4,  2.      Kvi^^ov  pev   vavapxov  en  6vra  (/cal   rols   StrXiras)  eVl   vava\v   6Xiyai9 

€veis  mpTTovai  Thuc.  II  80,  2.  This  last  passage  gives  trouble  to 
Kuemmell,  but  the  fact  is  that  the  local  has  vanished  before  the 
official  usage,  and  Captain  Knemos  is  sent  with  or  m  command 
0/2.  few  ships.  As  a  test,  let  one  try  to  satisfy  himself  with  the 
purely  local  notion,  and  he  will  see  that  the  image  presented  is 
uncalled  for  by  the  context,  and  absurd.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
the  notion  of  conveyance  had  been  intended,  the  whole  usage  of 
the  language,  where  no  emphasis  is  present,  would  have  demanded 
the  genitive.  Kuemmell  may  as  well  revert  to  the  purely  local 
notion  of  W  in  Thuc.  IV  44,  4  oh  KaTddr)Xo,  ^  pdxn  ?,p  M  roO  6pov,. 
Examples  of  the  official  genitive  are:  d  enl  t5>v  6nXnS>v  Lys.  32, 

5.  o  eVi  Toi  dpvyparos  LyCUrg.  121.      rovy  ,Vt  r^s  rroXiretay  ic^iecrrr^Kdras 


I 


6i 

Dem.  19.  298.    Toi,!  fVi  Tw  ■Kpay^uTa>v  Dem.  i8,  247.   Dem.  Proem. 
30,  I.     fVi  Tav  ffpa'|e<»i" Dem.  Proem    "si;   7      ->.„  ,■_;     -     < 
Aeschin.  2,  73.    rois  inX  roirav  fn^rrfmras  Herod.  4,  84  •  etc     For 
the  difference  between  these  and  the  dat.  see  p.  55. 

3.  A  third  more  difficult  and  indeed  impossible  line  to  draw 
was  that  which  should  separate  the  local  eW  and  the  more  vivid 
of  the  temporal  eV.'s  from  the  gradually  less  vivid  temporal  use 
which  finally  loses  all  imagery  in  e.  g.  (.A)  ,vi  ro.Vo..  (..^g,). 
Beginning,  therefore,  with  ,  120  o'y;^.,  ,V'  o'y;,.,  and  2  130  i^'  k^r 
a.of,  I  have  excluded  all  those  instances  which  involved  any 
notion  of  time  (<^rf.„.  i^X  <p6y^.  „^eo,  .VI  ndd»,  etc.),  even  thouah 
the  local  image  was  strong. 

4.  Again,  in  the  honors  to  the  dead  shown  over  the  corpse  at 
the  tomb  or  elsewhere,  the  step  is  easy  from  the  local  to  the 
derived  meaning,  and  to  distinguish  them  is  sometimes  difficult 
One  may  compare  p  706  .VI  n„rpoa«  v>^<  /3.(3^«.,  where  the  sense 
seems  merely  local,  with  n  661  .oX/„  y^p  .V  air^  .,!..,.„.  and 

W'lth  *  776  3„i.)  ot,  .Vi   narp6^\c.  W^„^  .  .  .  'A;^.XXcO.,  where  <nl  is 

often  translated  'in  honor  of.'  Compare  also  Xen.  Anab.  I  8,  29 
o.>.,.^ao-<  fia<r,\4a  «Xrfo-<,/ r,^'  .V.<r,^ufa.  airiy  Kip<o  (said  to  be  local) 
With  Cyrop.  VII  3,  7,  where  the  same  phrase  .V<a<^„rr«.  nvi  is  said 
to  mean  'in  his  honor.'  In  accordance  with  custom,  I  have  there- 
fore ruled  out  the  following  and  like  instances,  though  in  many 
the  local  sense  seems  sufficient:  Xen.  Hellen.  Ill  2,  5  ft,>a.T«  ro« 

iavTi,„  Ka,  noU,  or„o„  .W/o..r«  eV  airoZf.      Aesch.  Ag.  1547  rU  S'  <Vc- 

rCpfiw,  al„ov  .V  MpX  e,i,o  .  . .  ^„„^^»;    Aesch.  Eum.  329  .VI  &i  r<3 

r,e.p^.^  ro-a.  „Aof.  Eur.  Alces.  148  oHkov.  .V  air§  npaa^.rat  r'a 
np6a<t,opay  Herod.  VII  225  6  Xie^vo:  X.-<..  .-<.r,«  .VI  A.a.«S.,.  And 
the  frequent  phrase  X.-y...  .v.'  r,«  of  epitaphios  orations,  e.  g. 
Thuc.  II  34,  6  and  8.  35,  i.  Lysias  2,  i  and  2.  Isoc.  4,  74. 
Dem.  18,  285.   60,  I. 

5.  It  seemed  best  also  sharply  to  cut  off  many  abstracts,  though 
giving  such  clear  evidence  as  they  do  to  the  usage  of  the  language 
in  the  original  concretes.  And  so,  though  Bipai,  is  admitted,  I 
have  excluded  i)  noodvaoir  itAhm,,  ^.v.;;!  ■  o  ^-  -  ' 
°ra.  opra.  Tipixan,  T€\(,,  T.X.vr5  ;  also  (though  sometimes  admitting 
Xcopa)  t(J™,  -o«,  -o„,  oTpoT-ojr.-aa,  4>povpa,  Ki'pa,  oVXois-  camp,  etc. 
2)   (though  admitting  S«aar,p/o«)   ay5<r.,  S.'..-;,  S'airj,,  paprvpta.,,  <r.». 

^,.a«,  and  Other  phrases  of  occasion  such  as  .VI  S..V..,  ^,„,a,'a,.. 
etc.  The  following  is  a  complete  list  of  words  (and"  their  refer- 
ences) of  the  character  of  those  under  i)  : 


62 


apxTi  Theognis  607.  Plat.  Timae. 

48^. 
dia^dafi  (of  a  river)  Thuc.  VII 

78,   3.      Xen.  An.  VI   3,  5. 

Hell.  VII  2,  10.     Mag.  Eq. 

4,  5  (pl-)- 
dv<Tfxa7s  Xen.  An.  VII  3,  34. 

eV^oX,7  Thuc.  IV  83,  2. 

fiaoda  Xen.  Cyr.  I  3,  ir. 

fV^oXjJ  Xen.  Hell.  IV  3,  10.    7, 

7  (pl.). 
e|d5oiy  Aesch.  Sept.  33.  58.   Eur. 
Hel.  1165.     Ion  575.     Rhes. 
514.     Xen.  Hell.  V  4,  4  {,'^6d(p 

TTJs  dpxvs)' 

i<TxaT(o  Plat.  Charm.  155  c.  Pro- 
tag.  344  a.     Rep.  523  e. 

evpah  (camp)  Thuc.  VI  67,  i. 

€V7Tpoaod<iL>TdToi5  Xen.  Hell.  VI  5, 
24. 

Kepa  (of  army,  either  rz^^/if  or 
le/^)  Hd.  9, 102.  Thuc.  I  49, 
6.  II  90,  2.  IV  43,  4  6'0'  ,^. 
93,  4.  94,  I.  V  67,  I  (2).  VI 
67,  2.  loi,  4.     Xen.  An.  I  8, 

20.  VI  5,11.  Hell.  Ill  2,15 
(2).  IV  4,  9.  V  2,  40,  41. 
Oec.  4,  19. 

AuSoIff  Soph.  Trach.  356. 

XovTpoiai  Soph.  Elec.  445. 

fieaco  (of  army,  like  Kepas)  Xen. 

An.  VI  5,  II. 
oTrXoty  camp  Com.  Erg.  Adesp. 

663  (III).     Thuc.  VII  28,  2. 

VIII  69,  2.     Xen.  Cyr.  VII 

2,  8. 
opiois  Thuc.  II  12,  3.     Xen.  An. 

V  4,  2.   Cyr.  II  4,  31.  VIII  5, 

21.  Hell.  VII   2,   I.    4,  39. 


Andoc.   I,  45.      Lycurg.  47. 

Dem.  18,  174,  230. 
opufj  Plat.  Timae.  27  c. 
opfxco  Thuc.  Ill  76,  I. 
opois  Aesch.   Prom.  666.     Eur. 

Med.  540.    Hd.  (o0poto-t)  3,  91. 

5,  52.     Xen.  Hell.  VII  2,  20. 
ovpa  (of  column  of  men)  Xen. 

Hell.  IV  3,  4. 

'irpo9vpoia{i)  2  496.    a  I03.      Plat. 

Com.  4,  2  (II)  (Bergk  eVi', 
legebatur  hi).  Eur.  Alces. 
loi.     Plat.  Phileb.  64  r. 

Trpu/Mi/orp  (ayopay)  Pind.  Pyth.  V  93. 

aKonnls  Xen.  Cyr.  VI  3,  6. 
(TT€v(o  Xen.  Hell.  VI  4,  3,  27. 

(TTpaTevpLaTi  Isae.  4,  26. 

(TTpaTOTTedat  Xen.  An.  VII  3,  i. 

reXcvr^  Xen.  Mem.  I  5,  2  toC  ^iov, 
AeSChin.  3,    205   r^y   aTroXoyiay. 

Plat.  Gorg.  516  <2  roC  ^tou. 
reXei  Plat.  Euthyd.  291  ^,  of  a 
discussion.      Menex    234  a. 
Leg.   730  r.    818  «.      Polit. 
268  d.     Rep.  506  d.    532  (5  6  77* 

atiro)  yiyperai  rep  rov  i/ot/tov  rAft 
a)(T7T€p  e/cett'oy  rdre  fVt  rw  roO 
oparov. 

Ttpfiari,   -a-i    Aesch.    Eum.   633. 

Eur.  Heracl.  278.     Charmus 

(perh.   See  Bergk,  II,  p.  379). 

Hd.  7,  54.      Xen.   De  Rep. 

Lac.  10,  I  Tov  /Siou. 
TOTTO),    -oLs    Soph.    Trach.    iioo. 

Xen.  Cyr.  VIII  6,  17.     Isoc. 

5,  120. 
vTrepjSoXiJ  Xen.  An.  IV  6, 6  (2),  24. 
(f)povpa  Dem.  54,  3  (Blass  fV). 
ylrvxrj  Soph.  Ant.  317. 


63 

Instances  of  the  genitive  case  are  the  following : 


KapT€pa>v  Thuc.  Ill  18,  5. 
Keparos  Hd.  9,  47.     Xen.  An.  I 

8,9.    Hell.  II 4, 13.  VII  5, 25. 
ottXcoj/  camp  Xen.  De  Rep.  Lac. 

12,  7. 
TrXevpmv  (of  column  of  men)  Xen. 

An.  Ill  2,  36. 

TTpoaardov  Thuc.  II  34,  5. 


aKOTTTjs  Xen.  Cyr.  VI  3,  12. 

(TTpaTOTTcdov    XcU.    An.    VI    5,    4. 

Plat.  Leg.  674  a, 

TcXevTrjs    (tov    Xoyov)    AeSchin.    3, 
257. 

TOTTov  Dem.  10,  23. 
(fypovpas  Xen.  De  Rep.  Lac.  13, 
I,  II. 


Here  too,  it  appears,  is  there  an  oscillation  between  gen.  and 
dat.,  but  it  is  not  a  vacillation.  The  context  will  show  that  the 
dat.  is  deictic,  the  gen.  adjectival— a  difference  strikingly  shown 
by  the  two  following  passages :  Dein.  3,  8  eVi  /xeV  tS>p  5XXa,v  ddiKrj- 

fidroip  (rK€\lrap€Povs  dKpi^S>9  ScI  fxed'  rjavxias  Kal  Td\r)e(s  e^crdaapras,  ovt(09 
TTiTidepai  Tols  ^diKrjKoa-i,  ttjp  Tifxapiav,  eVt   de   rals   (f)ap€pah  Kal  napd  irdproip 

iop.o\oyripipais  npoboalais  kt\.  IsOC.  I5,  20  icat  yap  alaxpov  int  ph  tS>v 
aXXap  7rpaypdT(op  iXsYipopeardTovs   opoXoyeladai  .  .  .  ,  eVt  de  rols  dySxri  rms 

ep6d8€  yiypoptpois  rdvapTca  tiJ  do^rj  ravrrj  (fyaipeadai  Trpdrrovras.      It  will  be 

seen  that  secondary  matters  (aXXa)  are  disposed  of  with  the  geni- 
tive, important  matters  emphasized  by  the  dative  (note  roly  epddBe 
yiypofxepois  in  the  last  example). 

o.  rmally,  the  phrase  eV'  oUripaTos  (epyaarrjpiovf  reyovs^  has  been 
excluded,  when  signifying  places  of  prostitution.  The  passages 
are;  Hd.  2,  121  e,  126.  Dem.  59,  67  ipyaar^piov,  by  euphemism. 
Aeschin.  i,  74.  Dein.  i,  23.  Plat.  Charm.  163  d.  In  view  of 
the  fact  that  Grecian  houses  were  built  low — perhaps  especially 
the  case  with  cheap  houses  of  prostitution,  mere  slaves'  quarters — 
Professor  Gildersleeve  has  suggested  as  somewhat  more  than 
probable  that  the  women  literally  sat  upon  them,  just  as  other 
wares  would  be  exposed  to  view.'  See  his  note  on  eV*  reyovs, 
Justin  Martyr  Apol.  I  26,  15.  One  would  be  inclined  to  connect 
fV  epyaoTrjpluip  wovksJiops  thus  immediately  with  the  literal  sense 
of  eW.  But  whether  fVi  diKaarrjpiov  (see  the  orators)  should  also  be 
so  treated  is  doubtful,  in  view  of  the  rather  extended  use  of  em  c. 
gen.  in  the  sense  of  coram.  One  passage,  however,  certainly 
favors  the  literalness  of  the  phrase,  viz.  Dem.  58,  40  tVl  rw»/  dticao-- 
riy/jio)!/  K(u  TOV  ^rjpaTos — 3  passage  to  which  Lutz  fails  to  draw  atten- 
tion. 

^Seethe  scholiast,  however,  on  Plat.  Charm.  163^:  c.  tov  decjuur^piov, 
tjg  Avaiag,  y  e.  TzopveioVf  ug  ^AttikoI, 


64 
B. 

Examples  of  eVt'  in  the  Attic  Inscriptions. 

The  following  are  the  instances  of  .V/  c.  gen.  and  dat.  in  local 
sense  in  the  Attic  Inscriptions  down  to  300  B.  C. : 

€7rt  c,  Dat. 


Vol.  I   I,  40  /3a)/x«. 

273,  22  naXXaS/o),  also  in  1.  5. 

321,  20  rot;^Q),  also  in  1.   43. 
=  at. 

322,  9    yovla    ad    anguluvi 
Boeckh. 

322,  83  7rpo(TTd(T€i  ad porticum 
B. 


Vol.  I  322,  90  eVt(n-i;X/oiy    in   epi- 

styliis  B. 

324  ^     I     44     KVfJLclriOV   .    ,    .   TO     €771 

{STCJ  T(o  €7naTv\i(p,      So  324  C 
II   12. 

432  a,  32  2tdd(o  C'  is  locus,  ubi 
terrarum  situs  fuerit  igno- 
ramus," Kirchh.). 
Vol.  II  163,  19  i3<ofi<^  (twice). 


eVt  c,  Ge?i. 


Vol.    I    31,    17  A  tS>p   eVi   epaV. 

So  181,  3.  446,  46. 

I57>    6    /cop;;    ;tpvcr^    eVt    crT^Xrjs. 
So  170,   II.     173,  6. 

319,  19   <XtVa<e)   e'0'  U  ol  X/^oi 

((T€KOflL^OVTQ, 


Vol.  I  322,  44  Toixov  ad parietem 
Boeckh.     So  lines  51,  67. 
322,  86  Kopoiv  supra puellas  B. 

324^  I  18    Tov   nvhpa   TOP  em  rrj^ 
^aKTTjpias  elaTrjKOTa. 
Vol.  II   167,  63  TOt>U. 


c. 


Tad/e  showing  the  Local  Use  of 


vnu. 


Gen.  =su6 
Horn,  and  Hym.     28 
Hesiod 
Pindar 
Aesch. 
•Soph. 
Eurip. 


Aristoph. 

Herodot. 

Thucyd. 

Xenoph. 

Orators 

Plato 


12 

3 

7 

10 

12(13) 

^(?) 
o 


o 

o 
o 

[6 


=  VTreK 
17(18) 

2 

4 
o 

o 

5(4) 
i(?) 

i(?) 
o 

2 

o 

o 


Total 

Gens.  Dative. 

133(134)      109 

14 
12 

15 
10 

41 

6 
14 

4 
28 

8 
5 


32 
12 
48 
60 

135 
157 
457 
366 
702 
1294 
? 


Total 
Dats. 

2  T  '> 

25 
26 

22 
10 

45 

9 

40 

13 

52 


Accus. 
70 

2 

5 
M 

5 

29 

9 
22 

6 

24 


63     See  note. 
16  13 


Total 
Aces. 

72 

2 

6 

14 
6 

30 

12 

45 
43 

33 

26 

15] 


1 


> 


6s 

In  preparing  this  table  I  have  relied  in  the  case  of  Homer 
Pindar  Aesch.,  Soph.,  Aristoph.,  Thucyd.,  the  Orators  an"?kto 
upon  the  lexicons  of  Ebeling,  Rumpel,  Dindorf,  Ellendt  slbo' 
lewsk,  (d,ssertat.on).  Van  Essen.  Lutz.  and  Ast  r  spective ly    The 

tuZ      F  "..    T"'  '"'^^"P'^'^'  ^"^   '  h--  bracketed  The 
figures.     For  the  other  authors  the  count  is  my  own.     The  fol- 

lowmg  notes  may  be  added  as  explanatory,  or  of  interest 
ine  phrases  Wo  ^kotov,  -„„,  -^  (^^^      ^^,^      .   ,       ,  , 

.find  ""h  "?'^  '"  '''  '"'  ''  '°^^''  '^^  "-'^Ph-  being  a  vv  d  one 

f  mdeed  they  are  to  be  reckoned  as  metaphors.    Bui  the  phrases 

«a,,.„.  (.^.„.     etc.)  i^,  ,,,„i  (,„x„>.,.„  etc.)  „.„„  or  -M  Z  have 

been  excluded  from  the  purely  local  list,  as  also  J  ,ax,..    This  last 

wo'ditseTrTT'"'"'  ^"  "'"^^  ^'^"'«-"--  -shown';   he 
phrase T      "x   b     °7^^°"'>' '"  ^^e  genitive  and  only  in'thi 
marks  ofe'  v  ?  l^'  '"""'  ^°^'^)-    ^hese  are  almost  certain 
marks  of    adverb.ale  Erstarrung,"  ■  rendered  doubly  certain  here 

adVi  sibSti^r'f?.' """ "'''''''''  -^  "^^-->'  -  --etd 

Lvs  at      y       H  n'  tT"^''  "^^^^  "  '^  ^°""d,  viz.  Aristoph. 
Lys-  985.    Xen.  Hell.  H  3,  23.     Lysias  Erg.  54.     Dem.  20  12 

admu  this:  "nesc.o  an  hie  quoque  (Lys.  985)  haec  significat  o 
iclanculun.  vel  occulted  praeferenda  sif,"  Lt  Lutz  qu^o"es  the 
Lysu,s  fragment  as  "  das  einzige  lokale  Beispiel  fiir  L  c  gen 
bei  den  attischen  Rednern."  ^ 

betfed"'^'  °^"'  "'"'''"''  '"'^°"  "^^  '"""^'"^  P-"'s  «-y 
Homer  shows  but  two  cases  where  i.6  c.  ace.  may  be  taken  as 

bee  ns°l  Ho       ^'^:,"^'^."^'^  .'^  «^^^dy  and  frequent  throughout, 

stand  ""u     "'""  '"'*^""^'  ^'  'be  head  of  which  may 

stand  v^o  a<,^rpa,-the  source  perhaps  of  all  the  others. 

_    Hes,od,  according  to  Rzach's  constitution  of  the  text,  shows 
V.O  c.  ace.  only  twice,  one  of  these  being  i^l,  ^e6.a  Theog   ,04 
theotheroupifa'e„„',Op.  512.  *"eog- 304, 

Pindar  uses  ino  c.  dat.  seven  times  to  express  agent,  against 

r.h  f  "•,  'T'-  "''  P--"^"^""  bere  therefore,  a  well  as 
m  the  local  use  should  decide  for  the  dat.  in  01.  VI  40  Xo^o.  Z 
..a«„,.,  altogether  aside  from  the  question  of  picturesqueness  (Is 
one  ,tem  of  which  note  the  imperf  tense  of  J„).  Note  also  the 
difference  between  W'  Ktr.a.  Ol.  XIII  i„  and  I'  a^,,.  „„,.„.'„ 
'See  Brugmann,  Gruch.  Gram.,  §175  (p.  200). 


66 

V.  io6,  the  latter  in  a  careftU  enumeration.  Among  the  five 
local  accusatives,  vti6  yap  once,  hnb  x^opa  twice.  Like  Hesiod,  he 
has  no  temporal  accus. 

Aeschylus.— In  the  seven  Jocal  orenitives,  three  are  x^ovos,  one 
7^?.     Again  there  appears  no  temporal  accusative. 

Sophocles.— In  the  ten  instances  of  the  local  gen.  two  are  x^ovos, 
three  yaia^  (ySf,  -y^O-  Note  the  difference  between  {-tto  ariyrjs  Ant. 
1248,  which  means  no  more  than  under  cover,  clam,  and  r^b'  Inb 
arreyrj  pathetically  pointed  out  by  Philoctetes,  Phil.  286.  Sophocles 
too  avoids  the  temporal  accusative. 

Euripides,  as  might  be  expected,  reverts  to  the  epic  {^tto',  signi- 
fying hjrU,  four  times— or,  if  we  follow  Weil  in  Orest.  1457,  five  times. 
(Phoen.  792  being  surely  corrupt  (see  Paley),  has  been'excluded.) 
But  he  follows  Hesiod,  Pindar,  Aesch.,  Soph,  in  using  no  tem- 
poral vTTo  c.  accusative. 

Aristophanes  Av.  1070  l^  i^ias  nTcpvyos  has  been  admitted  as 
local,  with  Sobolewski  (sud  ala  mea),  but  is  doubtful.  Kock 
reads  eV.  So  too  Vesp.  206  hnobv6^^vo9  ,  .  .  in6  t5>v  K€pafxid<op  has 
been  taken  to  mean  des7id  tegulis  by  Sobolewski.  From  the 
rarity  of  that  meaning  in  post- Homeric  Greek,  this  may  be 
doubted,  unless  indeed  there  be  hidden  here  a  parody  on  Euripi- 
des.    At  last  two  temporal  accusatives  are  met,  Acharn.  139  hii 

avTOP  TOP  XP<'>vop,  1076  VTTO  Tovs  Xoas. 

Herodotus  4,  8  is  read  by  Stein  and  Kruger  M  rov  cipfxaros  and 
translated  as  vtt^k.  But  Abicht,  Baehr  and  others  read  /mo,  and 
Van  Herwerden  casts  out  altogether.  The  nearest  approach  to  a 
local  gen.  is  vtto  fxaarlycop  J,  22  and  56.  But  this  means  to  the  tu7ie 
of  the  /«^7/ just  as  in  lir  avXoO.  Of  the  twenty-two  local  accusa- 
tives, ten  are  Ino  y^p;  ol  the   14  temporal  accusatives,  nine  are 

VTTO   PVKTU   (vn-O   T^V    .    .    .    PVKTU,   etC.) 

Thucydides  VII  75,  5  should  not  be  read  with  Bekker  (and 
Van  Essen)  vnb  roh  SttXois,  but  eVi  To2?  oTrXots-  with  Pluygers.  (See 
Classen.)  In  the  forty-three  instances  of  wo  c.  accus.,  thirty-four 
are  temporal— a  remarkably  high  number  as  compared  with 

Xenophon,  who  in  thirty-three  accusatives  has  the  temporal 
{.TTo  c.  ace.  but  twice.  vtt6  c.  gen.  in  the  sense  of  In^K  is  said  by 
Kruger  to  be  seen  in  An.  VI  2,  22  and  25. 

The  Orators.— According  to  Lutz,  p.  179,  '' Der  lokale  Ge- 
branch  (of  vttu  c.  ace.)  umfasst  mehr  als  die  Halfte  aller  Beispiele, 
Antiphon  und  Andocides  beschranken  sich  einzig  und  allein  auf 
denselben." 


67 

Plato's  usage  is  not  fully  reported  by  Ast.,  but  is  perhaps  given 
complete  in  the  rarer  matters,  as  in  the  local  gen.  and  dat  Of 
the  six  local  instances  of  i7r6  c.  gen.,  five  are  Inb  yij^. 


The  following  dissertations  have  been  consulted  with  more  or 
less  advantage  in  the  preparation  of  this  essav  : 

Sobolewski:  De  Praepositionum  Usu  Aristophaneo,  1890. 
Lalin:  De  Praepositionum  Usu  apud  Aeschylum,  1885. 
Kuemmell  :  De  Praepositionis  ,ni  Usu  Thucydideo,  1875. 
Lutz:  Die  Praepositionen  bei  den  attischen  Rednern,  1887. 
Krebs:  Die  Praepositionen  bei  Polybius,  1882. 

Also  La  Roche's  articles  on  the  Homeric  inl  and  vn6  in  the  Zeit- 
schriftfiir  die  Oesterr,  Gyninas,,  vols.  XII  (1861),  p.  352,  and 
XXI  (1870),  p.  81,  have  been  used.  But  my  indebtedness  to 
Professor  Gildersleeve  has  been  much  greater  than  to  any  or  all 
of  these  together. 


f 


IWmiSlMKf'.S''^^  UBRARIES 


1010674250 


>  ill  I  III 


\  % 


■P*^ 
■&^ 


4™ 


i 


:i:.V> 


4^ 


>     -..^ 


'-^ 


^- 


y 


•*-.«•; 


4   \ 


»;_^- 


■■i'.*^  4; 


^1 


Kt    '^-^■— - 


f 


87iD 


p 


B94 


\ 


VA 


— «^ai((^, 


'Jl 


<#^ 


n 


*'4^. 


|:    =© 


-^  "•      ■^ 


-^- 


-    'V'J- 


ts-'H*r:' 


